A Calorie is not a Calorie?

brassyblonde900

Well-Known Member
Messages
331
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Included: Sam Feltham as an example of CICO (Psycho? Good one, Zoe). Insulin, glucagon and alcohol.
Why we do not disappear when in calorie deficit, BMR and why it does matter.
Not included: Where Dr. Harcombe bought that gorgeous dress (Yes, you can call me shallow :)).
No you are not shallow, ever since I went from, a size 24 to a size 10, I am 19 again.
Absolutely clothes mad, like a 19yr old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ziggy_w

Indy51

Expert
Messages
5,540
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Speaking of CICO, there's a debate on keto vs CICO on the Joe Rogan show tomorrow between Dominic D'Agostino and the dreaded Layne (Lame) Norton.

Today's was 4 hour marathon debate between vegan cardiologist Joel Kahn and Paleo guru Chris Kresser and should be on Youtube for anyone feeling particularly masochistic. Chris apparently knocked it out of the ball park. I've seen enough of Dr Smug Arrogance in the past to know I couldn't possibly have watched him in action again so can't give a personal review.
 

Daibell

Master
Messages
12,642
Type of diabetes
LADA
Treatment type
Insulin
Best to avoid talking about calories at all; it's serious global Group Think. I've just been to the gym and the machines said I burnt so many calories and that's probably fairly accurate and fine but so what. On the other hand measuring calories in what you eat is a waste of time as the body handles food groups in different ways and uses energy for fats to metabolise them but not so for carbs. I've never understood why people are obsessed with calories in food when the measure is pretty useless. So, keep the carbs down if you are diabetic or gaining weight and have a good mix of the other food groups including fats and proteins; simples. Should work for most people most of the time.
 

Dark Horse

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,840
Check out the missing 54g.
Different fats have different structures and produce slightly different numbers of calories per gram - 9 calories per gram is just an approximation and there is no 'missing 54g'.

This article https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/calories-in-a-pound-of-fat#section2 cites Max Wishnofsky as the originator of the 3,500 calories /pound figure in 1958. It also explains that the approximation, whilst reasonable in the short term, does not hold in the long term because the body changes as weight loss occurs. There are 2 links to calculators which do take these kind of changes into account, one of which is here:- https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-...behind-body-weight-planner/Pages/default.aspx
 

Guzzler

Master
Messages
10,577
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Poor grammar, bullying and drunks.
Different fats have different structures and produce slightly different numbers of calories per gram - 9 calories per gram is just an approximation and there is no 'missing 54g'.

This article https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/calories-in-a-pound-of-fat#section2 cites Max Wishnofsky as the originator of the 3,500 calories /pound figure in 1958. It also explains that the approximation, whilst reasonable in the short term, does not hold in the long term because the body changes as weight loss occurs. There are 2 links to calculators which do take these kind of changes into account, one of which is here:- https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-...behind-body-weight-planner/Pages/default.aspx

I'm no mathematician but wrt the 54g doesn't that rise with each passing 3,500 calories used? i.e 7000 calories = 108g and so on.
 

Mr_Pot

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,573
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
I'm no mathematician but wrt the 54g doesn't that rise with each passing 3,500 calories used? i.e 7000 calories = 108g and so on.
The exact calorific value of a pound of fat is not really important. The point is, that although you could burn a pound of fat in a laboratory and find out how many calories are generated, this does not mean that eating an "excess" of that amount of calories would lead to a gain of a pound of fat, or a "deficit" of that amount of calories would mean a loss of a pound of fat. There are several reasons, including the fact that Basic Metabolic Rate varies and food needs energy to digest, that means that the things don't equate. Suppose I grew a marrow and it contained a litre of water, if I watered it with a litre of water it would not exactly double in size and then with another litre of water, exactly triple in size and so on. Some of the water would be wasted, some would go to build other parts of the plant, and the genetic makeup of the plant would affect the size of the marrows.
 

Guzzler

Master
Messages
10,577
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Poor grammar, bullying and drunks.
The exact calorific value of a pound of fat is not really important. The point is, that although you could burn a pound of fat in a laboratory and find out how many calories are generated, this does not mean that eating an "excess" of that amount of calories would lead to a gain of a pound of fat, or a "deficit" of that amount of calories would mean a loss of a pound of fat. There are several reasons, including the fact that Basic Metabolic Rate varies and food needs energy to digest, that means that the things don't equate. Suppose I grew a marrow and it contained a litre of water, if I watered it with a litre of water it would not exactly double in size and then with another litre of water, exactly triple in size and so on. Some of the water would be wasted, some would go to build other parts of the plant, and the genetic makeup of the plant would affect the size of the marrows.

Exactly. As you know, I take no excercise whatsoever which should (if using the CICO model) mean that by now I must be the size of a small African nation. Instead I am thin on a diet of copious amounts of calories from animal products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brassyblonde900

Dark Horse

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,840
I'm no mathematician but wrt the 54g doesn't that rise with each passing 3,500 calories used? i.e 7000 calories = 108g and so on.
If it was an exact figure, the small 'error' would accumulate in the way you describe. However, it is a rough average and differs slightly between people (as the exact fats stored depend on which fats are eaten in the diet) and even between different locations within the same person. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2756915

The difference between 3,436 and 3,752 calories (the estimated range of energy produced by a pound of fat) is much smaller than the errors people make when trying to weigh foods and calculate their calorie intake so 3,500 as a rule of thumb is not unreasonable .
 

Honeyend

Well-Known Member
Messages
151
All right its not scientific but I eat roughly 1500 cals a day and should be still be losing weight if the calories in out theory works and walk 6-10,000 steps. So I should be still losing weight, I am not.
I know enough people who exist on very little food and are healthy, and some people who eat lots of food including carbs who do not gain weight and they to appear healthy. So something else is going on.
 

Guzzler

Master
Messages
10,577
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Poor grammar, bullying and drunks.
If it was an exact figure, the small 'error' would accumulate in the way you describe. However, it is a rough average and differs slightly between people (as the exact fats stored depend on which fats are eaten in the diet) and even between different locations within the same person. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2756915

The difference between 3,436 and 3,752 calories (the estimated range of energy produced by a pound of fat) is much smaller than the errors people make when trying to weigh foods and calculate their calorie intake so 3,500 as a rule of thumb is not unreasonable .

So, does it follow that being ultra vigilant about the numbers of calories in your food is just as approximate as the calories you 'burn'? We sometimes hear from members who come across as obsessive about calorific values and in at least one case I can think of a member who places far more importance on calories than on carbs.
 

Dark Horse

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,840
So, does it follow that being ultra vigilant about the numbers of calories in your food is just as approximate as the calories you 'burn'? We sometimes hear from members who come across as obsessive about calorific values and in at least one case I can think of a member who places far more importance on calories than on carbs.
People aren't very good at estimating how many calories they take in and calorie requirements are generally a 'ball-park' figure - it varies depending on body composition, exercise, gut flora, ambient temperature etc. I suspect people may have similar difficulties in estimating the number of carbs they take in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guzzler

Mr_Pot

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,573
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
So, does it follow that being ultra vigilant about the numbers of calories in your food is just as approximate as the calories you 'burn'? We sometimes hear from members who come across as obsessive about calorific values and in at least one case I can think of a member who places far more importance on calories than on carbs.
The calories and carbs in food is also approximate, particularly in fresh food. Meat may have more or less fat content, fruit can be more or less ripe, vegetables can have more or less water or be more or less fibrous. Most nutritional tables only have a generic name for foods, they will say "apple" for example, not a very sour Granny Smith or a very sweet Golden Delicious.
However, despite the inaccuracy the figures are still a good guide in comparing foods, whatever the exact percentage of carbs in turnips the fact that it is about a tenth of that in potatoes is very useful.
 

Guzzler

Master
Messages
10,577
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Poor grammar, bullying and drunks.
The calories and carbs in food is also approximate, particularly in fresh food. Meat may have more or less fat content, fruit can be more or less ripe, vegetables can have more or less water or be more or less fibrous. Most nutritional tables only have a generic name for foods, they will say "apple" for example, not a very sour Granny Smith or a very sweet Golden Delicious.
However, despite the inaccuracy the figures are still a good guide in comparing foods, whatever the exact percentage of carbs in turnips the fact that it is about a tenth of that in potatoes is very useful.

Useful. I find counting carbs useful even if approximate for Diabetes and for weight loss. I can honestly see little use in counting calories wrt to either.
 

Guzzler

Master
Messages
10,577
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Poor grammar, bullying and drunks.
People aren't very good at estimating how many calories they take in and calorie requirements are generally a 'ball-park' figure - it varies depending on body composition, exercise, gut flora, ambient temperature etc. I suspect people may have similar difficulties in estimating the number of carbs they take in.

But we do have hints as to the results of changing the amount of carbs we take in, with our waistlines and our glucometers. Not many of us have access to tests measuring metabolic rate or gut flora etc. I have absolutely no idea (even ball park) of how many calories I take in or expend but I do know that for the most part my intake of calories is from fats.
 

Guzzler

Master
Messages
10,577
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Poor grammar, bullying and drunks.
This 35 minute presentation by Ben Bikman is pertinent to the CICO v ENDO question.