yes and no. macro and micronutrients in food can effect the processes of your body, and diets can make it easier or harder to lose weight, and in this case the calories in/out doesnt hold true.
but strictly speaking, a calorie is an amount of energy. gasoline can be counted using calories. so if a piece of protein has 100 cal and a carb has 100 cal, they both have 100 calories worth of energy contained in them.
how your diet and effects on the body the specific food has does change this, but on a food to food basis its negligible. you would have to form an entire diet around your goals and only on like a weekly basis would you see a measurable change.
this movie is dorky, but the guy really does his research and explains it well:
But it is still cal in vs. cal out. As eating food with high thermic effect (like protein) simply increases your energy expenditure.
All calories except fats have this effect to some degree, but fats are an essential macronutrient you should not deprive yourself of.
Eli Peterson
Calories in and calories out is true on a theoretical level, but calories out is really hard to calculate, so it's pretty difficult to actually use. The best we have is "if you're not losing weight eat less or expend more"
Tracking calorie intake just gives you a ballpark idea
Luke Moore
Thx, for answers.
I forgot to mention, that I put all health issues like insuline boost, appetite control, vitamins and minerals etc. aside.
So, is this statement true:
In biology (human body), a calorie is not equal a calorie. But in physics (measure of energy, thermodynamics) it is.
its a lot easier in a controlled scientific setting to calculate a calorie than it would be in the incredibly complex human body.
Noah Lewis
Ok, i understand the trouble of measuring the consumption of energy in a body. Measuring the calories in food itself is complex.
The thing is that getting the energy from food simply costs us energy.
Jaxson Smith
I believe that is accounted for by BMR
Ryder Thomas
Yes, they are different. But also most people dont know what a Calorie is. What we call a calorie is really 1000×/ 1Calorie. Technically it should ve referred to as a kilocalorie. But its represented by a lower case "c" instead of the upper case.
A Calorie is the amount of energy to raise a cup of water by 1 degree Celsius. So technically the calorie we use in food is 1000× that. 1 cal. Is enough energy to heat 1000× cups of water by 1 degree Celsius. Uts quite complicated since we use the same terms and symbols as other terms that have different values.
Colton Richardson
this post is useless. as if someone would be confused and think theyre only eating 1/1000ths of calories.
and he didnt ask for the derivation of a calorie
Jason Turner
Ya, i know that too, it is proper to write 100kcal, but you know, nobody does that in duscussions so i stick to 100cal.
Oliver Foster
Not really man.
A calorie is still a calorie.
You are still intaking 100 kcal either way.
It is just your energy expenditure goes up by 30kcal because you are burning energy to consume the nutrients.
It is still calories, the only fluctiation is in how many calories you burn.
Chase Ramirez
Physics and chemistry majors have to compensate for the fuel source in their equations. If they need a 10 calorie reaction at the end of the line, and five calories will be burned through the chemical reaction. They will add an extra 5 calories so that it comes out 10. The calories don't suddenly vanish, they can just measure it within such a reasonable number that the extra calories don't matter. The human body is way too complex, assuming you can eat exactly 100 calories, now assuming you burn exactly 50 calories within the next 10 minutes, and assuming you digest all the food within that time.
Each portion of the process is entirely too open to variable, which is why when you deal with human diets it is always averages and never exacts.
Nathaniel Martinez
>A Calorie is the amount of energy to raise a cup of water by 1 degree Celsius. wtf am I reading? No it isn't.
Jacob Thompson
So, it's just energy consumed minus the energy I have to put in to get it? Fuck, English is not my native.
In case of protein: Do I get 70-75kcal from 100kcal consumed and do tables of calories take this into account?
Zachary Evans
>cup A single calorie actually raises 1 gram of water form 16C to 17C specifically
Luis Rodriguez
>Do I get 70-75kcal from 100kcal consumed and do tables of calories take this into account?
I write 70-75 because that's what most studies say the thermic effect of food costs us in case of protein.
Evan Williams
what? no.
fats and proteins are higher in satiety than carbs. carbs are literally the worst macro for satiety.
It's not a cup of water because scientists don't use imperial, but it is true that Calories are the energy required to heat 1kg of water (which is 1 litre of water) by 1 degrees Celsius
Julian Russell
Sorry, had to rush the thought, had to drive. I meant a kilogram of water by 1°C
Also the point of that post was to show a calorie is a calorie according to chemistry. But there is a few studies that show that biologically that might not be the case. There are a few articles that show some studies that say it depends on the type of food and calories that are taken in. They are broken down biologically differently and utilized for different things in the body. Like when you add flavor to your water your body digests it as a food not as water.
This is one of many articles as a citation. Its just the most recent one i saw on the top of Google search.
Complex carbs make you feel fuller you fuck stain. You think a bowl of oatmeal is less filling than a steak of the same calories? 2 oz of steak a half cup oatmeal cockboi
Parker Wilson
>medical contributor on many television shows including CBS This Morning, the Today Show, CNN, The View, the Katie Couric show and The Dr. Oz Show.
Not sure if credible.
Michael Thomas
I'm halfway through it, thanks for the tip (another user).
Anthony Hill
I watched him on YT, didn't strike me as a madman and talked with sense
Gavin Long
>In biology (human body), a calorie is not equal a calorie. But in physics (measure of energy, thermodynamics) it is. Calories are calories no matter what, what you meant is that the amount of calories each person absorbs from each type of food may vary.
Nicholas Lopez
Depends on what the carbs are in. Most unprocessed carbs have so much fiber and water that the sheer bulk makes it filling.
Sebastian Parker
I corrected myself: >So, it's just energy consumed minus the energy I have to put in to get it
Sebastian Hill
Hence why i stated that it was just a quick citation to give reference to other articles that re similar. I dont have all the links book marked so you'll have to do your own reading on the subject.
There's also been studies that show there is no true correlation between, fatty foods and blood cholesterol levels. Its actually quite interesting what we are taught our whole lives to find out its not exactly true.
Hunter Harris
Fat has the lowest satiety out of all macronutrients. You don't even know what the fuck you are talking about. And just for good measure, saturated fat from animals has the worst satiation effect of all fats, whereas polyunsaturated fats from plants and fish have the highest.
A calorie as it is listed on a food package isn't a calorie that is actually absorbed into your bloodstream, no shit. Almonds and some other nuts are renowned for the facts that you shit out a good 10% of them or more. A calorie that is absorbed into your bloodstream is a calorie.
Quit being a gullible fucking idiot and believing everything you read on the internet, holy shit.
Jeremiah Hall
>don't believe what you read on the internet >reading online means you're gullible >books are better
Seriously you must be retarded if you don't understand the Internet is a very useful tool. It has 100's and 100's of article's and studies you can read about and get conflicting and similar information to come up with a reasonable answer. You're probably one of those fools that belittle the people who use internet articles but puts "book written" articles on a pedestal. Don't you?
Books are dated and cannot be revised without recalling all the books that are let out. Even if its revised, someone can pick up an old version and believe its misinformation is the truth. They read it in a "book" so its infallible right?
Did you not look at the image i provided? It gave you steps to be able to decide if a source is credible or not. If its not, just read different article. Simple.
