Shared publicly  - 
 
Hungry?
There is plenty of argument over whether all calories are equal, thanks to a singular experiment where one man lost 27 pounds on a twinkie diet. In a more comprehensive look at the effects of diets a...
65
36
Maik Vietze's profile photoJudy Mobley's profile photoCharlotte Williams's profile photoRauf Guliyev's profile photo
19 comments
 
I tend to agree with the results and conclusions, but there certainly are caveats due to the limited number of participants and the duration of the test... Nonetheless, gee, a moderate diet with whole grains and healthy fats is likely the best options??? NO WAY!! ;-)
 
A calorie is a calorie. It is a unit of heat. A calorie is the amount of energy it takes to increase the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree C, at 1 atmosphere of pressure.  -1 lifehacker.
 
A calorie is a calorie, of course, The point is that the body deals differently with calories from carbohydrates than it does with calories from fats and calories from protein.
 
Calories are like a unit of measurement how is it not a calorie?
 
I'd say if you wanna get in shape use adidas micoach and do exercising then you can eat anything you want :-)
 
Not sure who or even what you're asking, +Mark Secare. Calories aren't like a unit of measurement, they are a unit of measurement. But a calorie of fat is completely different, chemically and metabolically, than a calorie of carbohydrate. They contain the same amount of bioavailable energy, but have very different effects on the body.
 
+Dave Sill, to your point of how the body deals with different substances:  

<rant>
Then they should have said that.  The calories from the different types of food are not any different at all.  The way your body metabolizes those foods may be.  That is not what the headline, nor the article points out.

The fact that the body more readily burns calories from one source of food over another has nothing to do with calories being different, because they are not.

I am sorry if I am being pedantic about this, but it really annoys me when, generally reputable sources (which I consider LH to be) proliferate public misconceptions.  This sort of thing does a disservice to everyone.

People will read this and think, oh non-carb calories are less energy than carb calories.  This is not true, and leads to misunderstandings about how diets, and the world, for that matter, work.
</rant>
 
+Chris Bartos a unit of measurement does not mean just length.  A gram is a unit of measurement, a pound, a light year, a second, an Amp.... 

Calories are a measurement of energy.  Specifically the amount of energy in a calorie (as I stated above) is amount of energy required to bring the temperature of 1 gram of water up by 1 degree C, at 1 atmosphere of pressure.

1 calorie from fat, energetically is identical to 1 calorie from anything else. 

I think your questions emphasis my point.  You read that and now you are confused because they made it sound like a calorie from a Twinkie is somehow different from a calorie from some rice.

What they are saying is there are some sources of food that our body can easily digest (takes few calories to digest).  There are other foods that take many calories to digest, sometimes more calories than the food being digested contains.  In that case, eating that type of food would take more energy than you are ingesting.  
 
I am not sure what you mean by the chemical properties thing.

The calories are the same.  You body may take more or less energy to digest some substances than others.

A calorie of bacon may only take 1/10th of a calorie to digest, while a calorie of rice may take 3.  (I pulled these numbers out of my ass, so don't read into them).  

Point being, it is not about the calories, it is about the efficiency of your body when processing these different substances.
 
+Chris Bartos, I just thought of an analogy for you.

Miles are not the same.  Study's show that if you swim a mile you will burn more energy than if you ride a bike for a mile.  See miles are not the same thing.

Really, the difference is not the mile, it is the amount of energy it takes to swim a mile vs bike a mile.  There is more resistance with the water, and a bike is made to be an efficient form of locomotion.
 
the low glycemic diet had the greatest effect on fat retention, metabolism, and overall health. There is more going with carbohydrates, fats, and proteins (all chemical compounds) than how much calories they possess.
Those on the low-glycemic-index diet burned about 150 calories a day more than those on the low-fat diet #without any negative impacts on cholesterol levels or various hormones, making it the ideal diet, Dr. Ludwig said. The glycemic index measures the impact of carbohydrates on blood-sugar levels.
Those on the low carbohydrate diet burned about 300 calories more per day than those on the low-fat diet — #but that bump came at a cost: increases in #cortisol, a stress hormone, and a measure of inflammation called #CRP, which can raise the risk of developing heart disease and diabetes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304458604577490943279845790.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
 
A mile is still a mile just like a calorie is still a calorie.
 
I tried the twinkie diet once. Lost 2lbs in a week, though admittedly there wasn't much to lose in the first place.
 
Pound are pounds, right? So if you stand beneath this bridge you won't care whether I drop a 10-pound steel ball on your head or a 10-pound bag of styrofoam packing peanuts, right? Wrong.

Calories are calories, but fats aren't carbs, carbs aren't protein, and protein isn't fat. They all contain energy that the body can release, but the chemical processes are completely different--they have different metabolic pathways.
 
Sigh... And my point is that not every property of an object or substance is determined by a single measurement. An inch is an inch, but that doesn't mean an inch of gold chain costs as much as an inch of twine.

The three macronutrients, fat, carbs, and protein, all have "calories", but they consist of different classes of organic chemicals that the body has to chemically process differently.
 
Exactly, +Joseph Bradfield. Pounds don't tell you everything important about an object just like calories don't tell you everything important about a food.
 
+Chris Bartos +Dave Sill and +Joseph Bradfield.  That is the point I am trying to make here.  The article acts as if there is a difference in the type of calories.  There are not "types" of calories.

In the example that +Dave Sill made was it is not the weight, but the mass that is important. 

LH is making the claim that it is calories that are important here, when in fact what is important is how difficult it is to process different substances.

And with that, I give up on this thread.
 
This study seems simplistic. Your body makes use of different types of foods like proteins, lipids, and carbs. Low-carb diets force your body to create ketone bodies to supply your body with sugar. And yes, a calorie is a unit of measurement, so it can't "be different."
 
Are there terms for calories/energy that come from the different macronutrients? These days, there seem to be the same kind of comments whenever an article about "a calorie not just a calorie" comes out (e.g. a calorie is a calorie, doye!), so why not just come up with terms like "carb heat"? 
Add a comment...