this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
37 points (93.0% liked)

Asklemmy

50161 readers
245 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

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

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

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

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[โ€“] homura1650@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

"Calories" is actually two different things. The first thing is a unit of energy. In this sense, calories are very much interchangeable. Wood has calories, which is why we use it for fire. However, if you tried eating wood, you would mostly just be increasing the caloric value of your poop. This is not inherent to wood; if you were a termite and tried eating wood, you would actually get nutritionally relevant calories from it.

For nutritional purposes, we generally use some variant of the Atwater system. The core idea was to measure the caloric value of food, as well as the caloric value of the subjects feces and urine. This gives you a better estimate of how many nutritionally relevant calories there are.

Nowadays, we have standard values various core food components (e.g various fats, proteins, etc). By breaking down a food into its components, we can apply the standard conversion for each component and add up the results to get a value for the food as a whole.

This process is actually pretty bad. The digestibility of individual components does not perfectly predict the digestibility of a whole food. The measure of individual components is not perfect. The actual digestibility of some foods can vary significantly between people.

As a practical matter, "counting calories", really just means eating less in a way that roughly measures food by effective energy content. It turns out that an accurate accounting of calories just isn't super important or useful for this. There is even bigger variance in the "calories out" department (including the annoying tendency of bodies to become more energy efficient when less energy is available). Further, all of the errors in calorie counting tend to be consistent. If you reduce calories by reducing the quantity of food you eat, you are reducing actual metabolized calories, even in the exact measurement is wrong.

It is a little more complicated if you reduce calories by changing the composition of the food you eat, but broadly speaking lower reported calories are actually lower effective calories there as well. Further, if you are adjusting the composition of your food specifically enough for this to be a problem, then you are well past the point where you should be caring about other nutritional factors.

[โ€“] CanadaPlus 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Neat explanation. I'm going to add "energy is conserved" to this; we expect people to know that and make the connection to calories, but better safe than sorry.

[โ€“] wolf@lemmy.zip 2 points 15 hours ago

Yes, I didn't thing too much about food/calories in the past, so when I read about the connection it is in hindsight obvious, but I didn't get the idea by myself.