Are all calories created the same?

[Quiver0f10]

For weight loss purposes only, are calories all the same? Say for instance your BMR is 1800 calories a day. You need a deficit of 3500/week to lose one pund, so you eat 1300 calories a day of twinkies. Would you still lose weight? Would it make a difference if it was 1300 calories a day or brown rice? Would one give you more of a loss than the other?

[Barb_]

For weight loss purposes only, are calories all the same? Say for instance your BMR is 1800 calories a day. You need a deficit of 3500/week to lose one pund, so you eat 1300 calories a day of twinkies. Would you still lose weight? Would it make a difference if it was 1300 calories a day or brown rice? Would one give you more of a loss than the other?

 

All calories are the same as far as the energy they give you to burn. They differ only in the nutrients they offer and how they make you feel. I've been on the twinkie-donut diet before (high school) and lost weight. But I felt disgusting. Mom bodies aren't as forgiving :)

 

Barb

[Ohio12]

technically a calorie is a calorie, but (as I understand it) there are two other huge components to this. 1.) blood sugar. if you keep your blood sugar even by eating lean protein and vegetables you will lose weight more quickly and 2.) you will feel a LOT better if you eat this way than trying to just limit calories

[j.griff]

I would think you'd have to factor in several things- the effects that all that sugar would have on your metabolism and the absorption of fat; how many calories come from fat; and since there is really no nutrition available in a twinkie, then you may be shocking your body and throw yourself into "starvation mode", therefor your body would hold on to every single calorie and fat gram you ingest; no real fiber in a twinkie, so your body wouldn't be functioning well; you could be constantly crashing from all that sugar, so you might not be moving as much as normal; not to mention the possibility of throwing yourself into a diabetic coma (I completely believe people can develop diabetes based on their diet). If your overall health is not well, your less likely to function efficiently, and therefore, IMO- less likely to lose weight.

[Quiver0f10]

blood sugar. if you keep your blood sugar even by eating lean protein and vegetables you will lose weight more quickly

 

But how is this so, if a calorie is a calorie, it shouldn't matter what you are eating? Why or how would you lose weight quicker by eating healther?

 

I know you feel better and are healthier eating better foods, but I am curious as to weight loss only and calories consumption.

[Quiver0f10]

I would think you'd have to factor in several things- the effects that all that sugar would have on your metabolism and the absorption of fat; how many calories come from fat; and since there is really no nutrition available in a twinkie, then you may be shocking your body and throw yourself into "starvation mode", therefor your body would hold on to every single calorie and fat gram you ingest; no real fiber in a twinkie, so your body wouldn't be functioning well; you could be constantly crashing from all that sugar, so you might not be moving as much as normal; not to mention the possibility of throwing yourself into a diabetic coma (I completely believe people can develop diabetes based on their diet). If your overall health is not well, your less likely to function efficiently, and therefore, IMO- less likely to lose weight.

 

 

This makes sense. Thanks!

[Jenny in Atl]

I'm one who believes people digest calories differently. Some can handle simple carbs or fats better than others. Our make-ups are all so different. I'm able to see this with my youngest. I know what her blood sugar is at least 10x a day and can see easily which calories effect her over chemistry more.

 

For example, she is able to eat bananas w/o sending her blood sugar through the roof with the normal bolus of insulin to cover the carbs. A friend of ours (about the same age and over all weight) who is also type-1, has to give herself much more insulin to digest the same about of carb/calories. So both kids are eating the same food (calorie amount/carbs) and their bodies are reacting in very different ways.

 

My dh can eat noodles, breads, all kind of fruits and not gain an ounce. If I ate like he did, I would easily be 40 pounds heavier. I exercise more than he does. It's all in the chemistry. :tongue_smilie:

[beansprouts]

But how is this so, if a calorie is a calorie, it shouldn't matter what you are eating? Why or how would you lose weight quicker by eating healther?

 

 

 

Because there is more to weight loss than pure calories.

[Barb_]

If your overall health is not well, your less likely to function efficiently, and therefore, IMO- less likely to lose weight.

 

You'll still lose weight; you'll just burn lean muscle mass rather than fat.

 

Barb

[beansprouts]

I'm one who believes people digest calories differently. Some can handle simple carbs or fats better than others. Our make-ups are all so different. I'm able to see this with my youngest. I know what her blood sugar is at least 10x a day and can see easily which calories effect her over chemistry more.

 

For example, she is able to eat bananas w/o sending her blood sugar through the roof with the normal bolus of insulin to cover the carbs. A friend of ours (about the same age and over all weight) who is also type-1, has to give herself much more insulin to digest the same about of carb/calories. So both kids are eating the same food (calorie amount/carbs) and their bodies are reacting in very different ways.

 

 

 

Wouldn't that be because one child is producing more of her own insulin than the other - or is that your point?

[Quiver0f10]

Because there is more to weight loss than pure calories.

 

This is what I was hoping to get at. If calories are calories, then what else is involved in weight loss. You need that 3500 deficit and if you eat 500/day less, you SHOULD lose according to everything I have read on it.

[Quiver0f10]

I appreciate the replies. I do feel eating lean protien, whole grains, high fiber is the best way for ME to lose, but was curious as to the science behind it .

[Barb_]

Because there is more to weight loss than pure calories.

 

Guys, not that I'm arguing for eating a shabby diet, but this is just incorrect. Weight loss is simply burning more calories than you take in. Here is a link to Mayo Clinic that explains it: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/metabolism/WT00006

 

The idea that type of calories matters was created to sell more diet books.

 

Barb

[abbeyej]

yeah, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. *Purely* in terms of calorie intake, it doesn't matter.

 

Of course, if you eat 1200 calories a day of highly refined sugars, your body will feel wretched, you won't be able to be as active (so you'll ultimately burn fewer calories), your overall health will suffer, you'll *want* to eat more calories because your blood sugar will be all over the map and your body will be craving more *nourishment*...

 

So, it's both "all calories are the same" and "it really makes a difference what you eat"... ;) lol.

[Barb_]

yeah, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. *Purely* in terms of calorie intake, it doesn't matter.

 

Of course, if you eat 1200 calories a day of highly refined sugars, your body will feel wretched, you won't be able to be as active (so you'll ultimately burn fewer calories), your overall health will suffer, you'll *want* to eat more calories because your blood sugar will be all over the map and your body will be craving more *nourishment*...

 

So, it's both "all calories are the same" and "it really makes a difference what you eat"... ;) lol.

 

Spoken like the true peacemaker you are, Abbey. :D Remind me, are you a middle child, perhaps?

 

Barb

[Quiver0f10]

yeah, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. *Purely* in terms of calorie intake, it doesn't matter.

 

Of course, if you eat 1200 calories a day of highly refined sugars, your body will feel wretched, you won't be able to be as active (so you'll ultimately burn fewer calories), your overall health will suffer, you'll *want* to eat more calories because your blood sugar will be all over the map and your body will be craving more *nourishment*...

 

So, it's both "all calories are the same" and "it really makes a difference what you eat"... ;) lol.

 

 

LOL. I would fall apart on the twinkie diet, but it's nice to dream :D

[beansprouts]

You're starting to confuse me now :tongue_smilie:

 

Are we talking about a calorie as a unit of energy (in which case a calorie is a calorie). Or are we using the word "calorie" to refer to the type of food which is the source of these calories (i.e. vegetables, whole grains, refined sugars, etc.,)

 

If you eat nothing but Twinkies, your body will be hungry for the nutrients it needs, and it will be very difficult to maintain the diet. If you stick with nutrient-rich foods, you will tend to eat less.

 

Another thing that makes a huge difference for me is drinking plenty of water. I shoot for a gallon a day while dieting.

[abbeyej]

Remind me, are you a middle child, perhaps?

 

I'm a bossy, know-it-all first born! ;) But I've gotten very *slightly* better at biting my tongue over the years. ;)

[Quiver0f10]

You're starting to confuse me now :tongue_smilie:

 

Are we talking about a calorie as a unit of energy (in which case a calorie is a calorie). Or are we using the word "calorie" to refer to the type of food which is the source of these calories (i.e. vegetables, whole grains, refined sugars, etc.,)

 

If you eat nothing but Twinkies, your body will be hungry for the nutrients it needs, and it will be very difficult to maintain the diet. If you stick with nutrient-rich foods, you will tend to eat less.

 

Another thing that makes a huge difference for me is drinking plenty of water. I shoot for a gallon a day while dieting.

 

I was talking from a pure calorie viewpoint. Not taking into acocunt how you would feel etc. Just calorie per calorie, would you lose weight.

[beansprouts]

I was talking from a pure calorie viewpoint. Not taking into acocunt how you would feel etc. Just calorie per calorie, would you lose weight.

 

In that case I guess the short answer is yes.

[JudoMom]

Some taste WAY better :001_tt2:.

 

Seriously, I'm with Barb on this one. A calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss. Sure, some things you eat will make me feel better and will help me to not eat as much, but the 500 calories in a piece of cake and the 500 calories in rice & chicken still equal 500 calories that I now need to burn.

 

Great. Now I'm hungry for a twinkie...

[CLHCO]

I started up faithfully with sparkpeople almost a week ago and what I've learned so far, after carefully monitoring what I eat and what the amount was, is that my normal eating habit stays between 1200-1400 calories/day often, which according to all the charts, I should lose weight on. But that's how I normally eat so why should I think for a second I'd be losing weight on that? My fat and protein levels are usually very close to where they should be too and I swear I don't feel like I'm eating any different. I simply have been plugging in what I eat.

 

So, it can't possibly be that simple or I wouldn't be needing to lose weight in the first place.

 

My last diet I had my calories and fat intake lower and lost almost nothing so I think that obviously isn't the answer either. It was the "Eat to Live". Or I wasn't aggressive enough? No good answers anywhere.

 

I hope I'm not hijacking your thread with my own anecdote but this very thing was puzzling me last night.

[Jenny in Atl]

Wouldn't that be because one child is producing more of her own insulin than the other - or is that your point?

 

No, neither has insulin, but for what they are injecting/pumping (type-1 the pancreas is dead, no longer makes any). It's how each child metabolizes the food. What I was saying is that even if all calories are the same, each of us uses them differently. Some are much more efficient at burning off empty calories than others.

[Joanne]

Because I have tried it on myself and it works for me. I eat high fat, low carb and I am losing weight very easily. I am never hungry, my health is good and my numbers are great (cholesterol, BP)

 

*nods*

 

I consume more calories now than when I was over 200 pounds.

 

I do not believe that a calorie = any other calorie in terms of weight loss. What comprises that calorie and how it's processed in your body determines health/weight loss.

 

I don't count calories (for that matter, I don't count carbs, either, since mine mostly come from veggies and fruit) and I've lost nearly 50 pounds.

 

When I did WW, I counted and ate a fairly "balanced" and "healthy" and "whole foods" diet. I did not lose and I was irritable.

 

Reading Gary Taubes's "Good Calories, Bad Calories" gave me the scientific backing on what I had discovered already.

[Barb_]

I started up faithfully with sparkpeople almost a week ago and what I've learned so far, after carefully monitoring what I eat and what the amount was, is that my normal eating habit stays between 1200-1400 calories/day often, which according to all the charts, I should lose weight on. But that's how I normally eat so why should I think for a second I'd be losing weight on that? My fat and protein levels are usually very close to where they should be too and I swear I don't feel like I'm eating any different. I simply have been plugging in what I eat.

 

So, it can't possibly be that simple or I wouldn't be needing to lose weight in the first place.

 

My last diet I had my calories and fat intake lower and lost almost nothing so I think that obviously isn't the answer either. It was the "Eat to Live". Or I wasn't aggressive enough? No good answers anywhere.

 

I hope I'm not hijacking your thread with my own anecdote but this very thing was puzzling me last night.

 

The way I understand it is, the older you get, the lower your basal metabolic rate is set. So the calories that you burn sleeping, breathing, digesting, just *living* are fewer as you age than when you were young. I suppose you could say we become more efficient at conserving calories, which would have served us well in the days when we had to work harder to get them. Also, as you age you tend to conserve your own energy, figidting less often, saving steps by doing everything in one part of the house at once...that sort of thing. I seem to remember that 70% of the calories you burn are basal, so it makes sense that you need to take in fewer calories and exercise more as you get older.

 

Barb

[Barb_]

 

Great. Now I'm hungry for a twinkie...

 

LOL, I know! I had to go get a bowl of frosted mini-wheats to satisfy my sweet tooth after all the twinkie talk.

 

Barb

[Storm Bay]

Technically, as for as energy amounts are concerned, all calories are equal. In reality, of course, they are not. One of the best things I ever learned is that fat calories help you to feel satisfied, and protein calories help curb your appetite. This latter one is because, as other posters have mentioned, protein breaks down more slowly which is why it helps keep blood sugar levels stable. I've used this with my kids' snacks, especially when they were young.

 

It's important to have a healthy balance, and it can vary between individuals. If you don't have enough fat, you're more prone to things such as depression (you need some to make fat-based, aka steroid, hormones, and seratonin is one of those.) Lots and lots of people on very low fat diets become or stay overweight because they keep feeling hungry (or they think that as long as they eat low fat, they're okay)

 

Also, I think that getting adequate vitamins, minerals and antioxidants is important to losing weight the healthy way.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

But how is this so, if a calorie is a calorie, it shouldn't matter what you are eating? Why or how would you lose weight quicker by eating healther?

 

I know you feel better and are healthier eating better foods, but I am curious as to weight loss only and calories consumption.

 

Your body knows, eventually, that it is not nourished by twinkies. So yes, you could eat 1300 cals of twinkies a day and lose weight. But it's not as simple as that. Because you only get ~2% of the nourishing you need for the day (vitamins, minerals, proteins) in 1300 cals of twinkies, your body would start craving enough twinkie calories to accumulate 100% of the nourishment you need. Eat 50X the 1300 calories, and now you have finally have 100% of... something, vitamin C probably.

 

What I'm saying here isn't a good explanation, I know. But eating empty, non-nutritious calories just makes your body need more calories in hopes that the NEXT calories might have some nourishing for your body.

 

Yes, you can lose weight with whichever calories. But it's next to impossible to sustain a low-calorie diet of nutritionally "fluffy" (as opposed to dense) foods. Also, nutritionally dense foods boost the metabolism so that the same calories burn more calories being digested (brown rice vs. twinkies) and have a longer "burn" time afterward.

[Peela]

My argument against low fat and fat free is that people have been pushing this for years and people aren't getting healthier and thinner. They are getting fatter and they are failing miserably on these diets. I will grant that living a low carb lifestyle is not always easy in a fat free high carb world. And eating issues can run very deep (emotional eating, etc). But for me, I don't have those issues. My issue was eating the wrong kinds of food. I even eat more calories now than I did and it is causing me to lose weight because I am eating the right kinds of foods.

 

Crazy..but true in my experience.

 

Yes but my issue with this is....many people DO lose weight doing high fat/low carb (well its all about the protein of course). And actually many people DO lose weight doing low fat. Ask simply here on these boards...many people lose weight with WW.

 

The problem is, as far as I can tell, more about habits and developing a healthier lifestyle, so that habitually one turns to healthier foods. And I am the first to admit different people need different diets- I have studied Ayurveda and people simply have different body types. But any diet that is a radical divergence from your normal diet, or a diet you can normally sustain easily, is bound to fail in the long term.

 

I realise the low fat diet has its problems, but I see that those problems are often largely to do with marketing of high sugar unhealthy highly processed but low fat foods, rather than a problem inherent in the low fat diet. Low fat doesn't mean no fat, of course. Fat simply carries more calories per gram, however, it also gives one a sense of satiety and comfort.

I personally do not see the high protein high fat diet as a sustainable diet in the long term, for many people, even though many can lose weight on it in the short term. Nor does it suit everyone- I have tried it twice and it makes me feel suicidal- really badly depressed. So I know it's not for me.

 

In the end, I think it has been proven true you can eat more calories on a low carb diet and still lose weight, and that is going to work for some people. But I am not into one type of diet for everyone. Our bodies do vary a lot, not to mention our psychological tendencies. Some prefer to restrict what they eat (eg they can cut out carbs) and others, such as with WW, you can eat anything, but you restrict the quantity.

 

Lucky there is so much variety out there, but of course that works against us too.

Im not having a go at you, Wendy, glad its working for you, as it does for many people...just using your post as a jumping board to my thoughts.

 

I have been watching this high fat high protein thing. I noticed one of our Australian pop stars went on the Montague diet a few years back- she was quoted in the advertisements. A couple of years later, she had breast cancer. Of course it may not be related, but eating a diet very high in meat just doesn't equate with health in my books, even if it keeps your bum nice and taut.

 

Balance.

[RoughCollie]

I read somewhere that it uses up calories to turn protein or carbs into body fat, whereas it burns up no calories to turn fat into body fat. IIRC, 1/3 of a protein's calories are burned up when it changes into fat. I don't recall the stats on carbs.

 

Twinkies are full of fat and after a moment on your lips, it will go straight to your hips.