Asklemmy

50252 readers

840 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Why does calorie counting work for weight loss and why are calories interchangeable? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by wolf@lemmy.zip to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

According to a book I am reading, diet science currently agrees that there is one way to loose weight: A calorie deficit.

For example, if I need 2000 kcal a day and eat only 1500 kcal a day, I will loose some weight over the next weeks/months.

To my understanding, calories here are totally interchangeable, if we are only concerned with loosing weight (and ignore nutrients etc).

Calories are basically measured by burning food and measuring how much energy was set free.

My question is: Why and how does it work so good and why are calories interchangeable?

In more detail: Why can we translate the burning of calories with fire to processing the calories in food with our digestion system so perfect? Why is there no difference (concerning weight loss), if I eat 1500 calories as pure sugar or eat them as pure protein (where I would assume the body needs more energy to break down the protein)?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago

I don't think I've seen the answer you're chasing.

I also don't have it but it's a very intriguing question.

My assumption is that it is just close enough and we based the amount we're meant to eat off of what worked and retroactively added the numbers in.

As for the interchangeability of it all, at the end of the day the body wants glucose ameno and fatty acids to make energy so it breaks things down into it. Most stuff is made of the same basic three building blocks.