Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All "calories" are not the same

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Scott F View Post
    I could win that bet. I'll put you on a 4,000cal/day diet eating only indigestible fiber.
    If it's indigestible, it has no caloric value to humans.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by j3nn View Post
      If it's indigestible, it has no caloric value to humans.
      True but with fermentable carbs (aka fibers aka microbiota accessible carbs or MACs), things are not so black and white. Some fatty acids created by bacterial fermentation do end up serving as energy to colonic cells

      Some will be excreted as well, so it is hard to quantify how much "cals" you derive from them. I think I read a figure of 1 kCal / g of fermentable carbs.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by John Caton View Post
        Thanks, Elliott. I was reminded yesterday of something you pointed out a few days ago about this CICO subject. You correctly said it's about "mass in - mass out". Calories simply being a unit of measure regarding potential energy.

        That being said, I ask the proponents of CICO this:

        If I eat a gram (mass) of carbohydrate and it converts to a gram of fat, the caloric value of the mass jumps from 4 to 9. Where did the extra 5 calories come from? ANSWER: They came from no where. Neither did the original 5 come from anywhere. They don't actually exist yet, until its time for them to be utilized as energy.

        The calorie is just a unit of measure of potential energy that might "come out" when "burned" if the entire gram of matter is metabolically utilized as energy. But, the entire gram of fat, in the example above, might not be burned. Some, or all of it might be utilized as cell membrane matter and never be burned, or as a molecular component of a hormone. If burned however, it was 4 calories in and 9 calories out. If not burned, it was 4 calories in and 0 (or some small fraction) calories out. Either way, it is not a calorie in and a calorie out. It was a gram of matter in and a gram of matter used - for something - energy or another form of matter - within the body. It can't be destroyed 'cause Einstein said so.

        Back to the question of where the additional 5 calories came from? The change in chemical composition from a carbohydrate to a triglyceride made it more "combustible" and raised the energy potential in the gram of matter. If converted to energy, rather than another form of matter, that energy generation takes place in the mitochondria of the body's cells, converting either glucose or fat into ATP molecules which is the actual source of energy. An example of the higher energy potential of the fat is demonstrated by the fact that a molecule of glucose converts to only 4 molecules of ATP but a molecule of fat converts to 42 molecules of ATP. Gram for gram, the fat supplies more than 10 times the ATP energy as does the carb. Which, then, is more efficient?

        Bottom line: Science says it is not CICO. Pay me.
        What makes you believe it is a 1:1 ratio of carbs:fat in the conversion? It's not a 1:1 ratio, sir.
        | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

        “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by FrenchFry View Post
          True but with fermentable carbs (aka fibers aka microbiota accessible carbs or MACs), things are not so black and white. Some fatty acids created by bacterial fermentation do end up serving as energy to colonic cells

          Some will be excreted as well, so it is hard to quantify how much "cals" you derive from them. I think I read a figure of 1 kCal / g of fermentable carbs.
          Yes, well, I consider the gut and its biome a separate entity, LOL. Only half-joking. It sort of is.
          | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

          “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by j3nn View Post
            If it's indigestible, it has no caloric value to humans.
            Exactly. But the caloric value still will be included in the count. This is an example of when a calorie is not a calorie. How it is used dictates the real value. The point here, then, is 4000 calories in = 0 calories out. Thanks for agreeing with us CICO deniers.
            Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
            Old Paths ... New Journeys

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by FrenchFry View Post
              True but with fermentable carbs (aka fibers aka microbiota accessible carbs or MACs), things are not so black and white. Some fatty acids created by bacterial fermentation do end up serving as energy to colonic cells

              Some will be excreted as well, so it is hard to quantify how much "cals" you derive from them. I think I read a figure of 1 kCal / g of fermentable carbs.
              You are correct. Calories in may not be used in the same fashion as calories from a different substance. It has to be looked at according to the substrate.
              Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
              Old Paths ... New Journeys

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                What makes you believe it is a 1:1 ratio of carbs:fat in the conversion? It's not a 1:1 ratio, sir.
                It isn't an exact 1:1 ratio because some caloric energy is used in the molecular conversion, at the expense of the mass of the glucose, part of which will also be dispelled as waste. Whatever the total mass that's left is converted 1:1; else I'd be destroying mass which mass equivalence says I can't do, although I stand accused of creating energy from nothing.
                Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
                Old Paths ... New Journeys

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by John Caton View Post
                  Exactly. But the caloric value still will be included in the count. This is an example of when a calorie is not a calorie. How it is used dictates the real value. The point here, then, is 4000 calories in = 0 calories out. Thanks for agreeing with us CICO deniers.
                  No. Indigestible fibers are not counted towards calorie counts on nutritional labels or in any calorie tracking for humans, period. Why would you count something that has no impact? We know for a fact that indigestible fibers have no caloric impact, but things like a rare steak vs. a well-done steak are too unpredictable even though their actual caloric value differs. CICO is not perfect, but it is a legitimate tool of measurement that you will find you must customize your formula.

                  Are you enjoying your 6,000 calorie HFLC daily diet? I wish I could eat that much!
                  | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                  “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by John Caton View Post
                    It isn't an exact 1:1 ratio because some caloric energy is used in the molecular conversion, at the expense of the mass of the glucose, part of which will also be dispelled as waste. Whatever the total mass that's left is converted 1:1; else I'd be destroying mass which mass equivalence says I can't do, although I stand accused of creating energy from nothing.
                    Please show the literature on how exactly 1g of carbs converts to exactly 1g of fat.
                    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Is CICO Battle part of the Carb Wars?
                      The Champagne of Beards

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                        If it's indigestible, it has no caloric value to humans.
                        That irrelevant. A calorie is a caloric unit of energy. If I feed you a 4,000 calories of sugar (esp dextrose) I'll bet you are going to gain more fat than if I put you on a diet of 4,000 calories of protein. In and of itself protein has no caloric value to humans, either. In order to extract energy from the protein you eat your metabolism first has to preform some chemistry to knock out the N. That takes metabolic energy that isn't required for digesting dextrose....that metabolic energy would not be available for fat storage. So, metabolically, a calorie of protein is not the same as a calorie of sugar.

                        And again the type macro calories you eat will effect your mood and desire to move and exercise. Alcohol has caloric value to humans, too. If I put you on a 4,000cal liquid diet consuming only Jack Daniels I'd bet that will effect your mood. It might make you one happy camper (at least between hangovers) but I'm thinking your desire to exercise, work and get sh%^ done is going to tank.
                        Last edited by Scott F; 01-09-2015, 09:17 AM.
                        Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                          Please show the literature on how exactly 1g of carbs converts to exactly 1g of fat.
                          You copy my quote that it isn't an exact 1:1 ratio and then ask for proof that it is an exact ratio?

                          The total mass and energy of the one must equal the total mass and energy of the other. Therefore, if we keep the caloric levels equal between the two substances, that means I destroyed mass or converted more than half the mass to energy. If that happens we should see a burst of energy when glucose converts to fat. We don't. We see the opposite.
                          Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
                          Old Paths ... New Journeys

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Scott F View Post
                            That irrelevant.
                            Um, no. It's not irrelevant. If it had a positive NET caloric value to humans, nutritional labels would include it, but because it has no* NET value, it is not a variable in the calories in equation. In fact, it would have negative caloric value from the energy to process it.

                            No CICO proponents are saying all calories are treated equally by the human metabolism. Whole raw apples have less NET calories than applesauce; rare steak has less NET calories than a petrified steak; chicken breast has less NET calories than a piece of cake. However, ALL of this is accounted for in an individual's TEE. Everyone has a CICO formula. You can manipulate it (slightly) and do things to improve or degrade it, but you will always be confined to your individual limitation. No one is exempt from caloric limits.

                            * Has microbiota value, but that's a different discussion.
                            | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                            “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by John Caton View Post
                              Do you ever contribute anything to a discussion or are put downs of others your only operating mode? Since you're smarter than me, how many calories are in a pound?
                              A pound does not exist because if somebody gives me a piece of meat they say weighs a pound, I see the piece of meat but the pound I can’t see whatsoever! Then I eat the piece of meat but I didn’t eat the pound so where did the pound go??? And the same with calories, nobody has ever observed them, not even under a electron microscope so how can they then exist???
                              "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                              - Schopenhauer

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by John Caton View Post
                                You copy my quote that it isn't an exact 1:1 ratio and then ask for proof that it is an exact ratio?
                                This statement says otherwise:

                                If I eat a gram (mass) of carbohydrate and it converts to a gram of fat, the caloric value of the mass jumps from 4 to 9.
                                You asserted that a single gram of carbohydrate converts to a single gram of fat, which is a 1:1 ratio. Now you're backpedaling.

                                The total mass and energy of the one must equal the total mass and energy of the other. Therefore, if we keep the caloric levels equal between the two substances, that means I destroyed mass or converted more than half the mass to energy. If that happens we should see a burst of energy when glucose converts to fat. We don't. We see the opposite.
                                A pound of fat doesn't contain the same amount of calories as a pound of muscle even though the mass is the same. Eating a pound of cookies will not result in gaining a pound of adipose tissue.
                                Last edited by j3nn; 01-09-2015, 09:22 AM.
                                | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                                “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X