When is a calorie not a calorie?

NoQuarter

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Had 3 eggs scrambled this morning. Didn't feel hungry til after the gym at 5.

Luckily I've a fridge full of meat to eat before it goes off.

#martyr

Madness! I'd eat 4 wheetabix for breakfast at 8am, 3 microwaved eggs and a slice of bread at 11 and would need to eat a full lunch at 2pm! I'm only 80kg!!

Alf Veedersane

NoQuarter wrote: »

Madness! I'd eat 4 wheetabix for breakfast at 8am, 3 microwaved eggs and a slice of bread at 11 and would need to eat a full lunch at 2pm! I'm only 80kg!!

I don't normally eat that early but I was out on site so I wasn't sure when I'd be eating next. Worked out nicely.

CaptainAhab

I was in the same situation a year ago - porridge or brown bread with fried eggs for breakfast at 7, starving by 9 so would have to have a snack with me or get a deli item, then lunch at 12, and a massive dinner at 6 (huge amounts of potatoes or pasta).

Now I will have 4 eggs and 2 pieces of bacon for breakfast at 7, won't be hungry until about 2 where I might have a handful of nuts if anything, and will have a dinner at 6 only half its previous size such as a steak with some spinach and onions.

Bruno26

I used to eat porridge every morning - hungry by 11. Now I eat Greek yogurt and 2 hard boiled eggs. Never hungry until 1/2.

rubadub

NoQuarter wrote: »

A calorie is a calorie. Fine. Fine in terms of a unit used to measure energy.

Actually if you asked a physicist and a food scientist for calorie values of a given amount of a food you might get different answers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy#Nutrition_labels

The amount of food energy associated with a particular food could be measured by completely burning the dried food in a bomb calorimeter, a method known as direct calorimetry.[7] However, the values given on food labels are not determined in this way. The reason for this is that direct calorimetry also burns the dietary fiber, and so does not allow for fecal losses; thus direct calorimetry would give systematic overestimates of the amount of fuel that actually enters the blood through digestion. What are used instead are standardized chemical tests or an analysis of the recipe using reference tables for common ingredients[8] to estimate the product's digestible constituents (protein, carbohydrate, fat, etc.). These results are then converted into an equivalent energy value based on the following standardized table of energy densities

NoQuarter wrote: »

Has anyone done an experiment whereby one person ate just bread/carbs and the other ate just chicken/protein assuming the same calorie intake and exercise regime?

There was a study giving 1 group 500kcal per day as a sugary drink and the others got 500kcal of alcohol. The sugar group put on more fat. The rest of their diets were similar.

You do not even have to use different foods to show that 500kcal worth of one food may not have the same impact as 500kcal worth of another food. Just down a can of sweetcorn unchewed and look at what comes out the other end, if you think your body extracted the same amount of energy from this as if it was blended into a fine soup then calorie counting is the least of your worries.

Studies showed peanut butter gave more energy than eating the same kcal worth in whole nuts.

As a heavy drinker I am well aware that the calories in alcohol do not have nearly as much of an effect as say chocolate.
Why the Body May Waste the Calories From Alcohol

If someone asked me "is a calorie a calorie" I would not just give this stupid blunt "yes" answer, acting like Sheldon Cooper off the big bang theory. Weird that people feign ignorance about what people are actually asking, maybe in some attempt to appear smart, but its sadly backfiring. You can ask them to explain further what they really mean, which is most often "is 500kcal worth of one food going to have the same impact on my body as 500kcal of another food".

Eating a kilo of one food will typically not have the same effect as eating a kilo of another. The kilo is just another unit people could have decided to use to estimate the energy you will get from food. Most people would accept that fact, or that similar volumes of food would not have similar effects. Calories are just another unit to measure a quantity of food by, some people seem to think calories are an exact science in relation to humans. Calories are certainly a better estimate than portioning your food out in kilos or litres but still only an estimate. There was a poster here before who was convinced drinking 500kcal of petrol per day would have the same effect on fat levels as 500kcal of coke.

El_Dangeroso

rubadub wrote: »

As a heavy drinker I am well aware that the calories in alcohol do not have nearly as much of an effect as say chocolate.
Why the Body May Waste the Calories From Alcohol

I was wondering when the calorie master would show up

On the subject of alcohol, no you don't tend to use alcohol calories very efficiently in the body, but alcohol plays havoc with your blood sugar, and I tend to crave crappy food and be extra hungry the day after alcohol consumption. I think observational studies bear this out, where heavy drinkers tending to have a lot more abdominal fat than more moderate drinkers.

Bruno26

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?referrer=