[evelove]

Hi everyone! I am new to calorie counting and a bit confused. I was a weight watcher and it seems to me that their "theory" is a bit conflicting. Basically, because weight watchers gave 0-1 point values for a lot of vegetables and even some fruits, I now find myself with the mindset that veggies are free foods and so I overeat them (calorie wise) while being afraid to eat normal foods.

I'm not sure if I am making sense. For example: will 1400 calories of vegetables, lean protein and healthy fat really elicit the same weight loss that 1400 calories of lean protein, healthy fat and refined carbohydrates (bread or pasta). Now, I know that the veggies would give you more fiber, nutrients, volume, but I am asking on a pure calorie basis. Does a calorie from spinach really effect you the same as a calorie from a candy bar in a purely weight management sense?

Any thoughts, tips, or advice?

Thanks!!!

Eve

[aneleh]

I think the reason why veggies are 0 to 1 point foods is because most people don't eat nearly as much as they should, so it encourages you to eat as much as you want. A healthy diet is balanced, even if you lost weight without veggies, your health will likely suffer, what's the point in that?

[CountingDown]

Each body is different, so there is no right answer to your question.
I can tell you that my body handles refined carbs much differently than it does raw vegetables. I will gain weight on the same number of calories. Eating clean is a critical part of my plan, and too many days of too many carbs is disaster.

That being said, lots of refined carbs lead to carb craving and carb binging for me. That may not be true for you.

I don't think you can discount or ignore the differences in fiber, nutrients, and volume - they DO make a difference in how your body processes the food. In other words - because of those differences alone - no - a calorie from spinach is NOT the same as a calorie from simple sugar.

And - though you didn't ask - as a calorie counter, I count ALL of my calories - veggies included.

[kelly315]

Although they may have different effects as far as how smoothly your body runs, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie in terms of weight loss or gain.

I think weight watchers is afraid of telling people they can't have too many veggies or fruit. But the truth is, a lot of fruit is just as sugary and bad for you as some candy. In moderation, it's wonderful, and full of vitamins, but not counting those calories will lead to disaster.

[yoyoma]

As I understand it, the answer is yes.

The calories listed for foods reflect the number of calories available. Higher fiber foods (veggies) instead of refined carbs will not be digested as efficiently, so you will actually get less of the available energy.

BTW, foods require energy to be digested, and additional energy is required to store it as fat. Protein is the least efficiently digested, fat is the most efficient.

[jademarlene]

I would think if you have 100 calories of candy and 100 calories of spinach you have a 100 calories......but the candy will be 100 empty calories. The spinach will give you nutrients and be more filling.

[evelove]

That is exactly what is so confusing. The calorie theory would have you think that 500 calories of veggies are the same as 500 calories of sugar, although, you would have more fiber and nutrients with the veggies, the effect on weight would be the same.

I've had nutritiion experts say opposite things.

Some say that there is a definite difference bc the calorie theory does not take into account the actual digestable energy and then other "experts" say that fiber may make you fuller but that the available energy is the same.

I wish we had some studies or examples comparing the two.

I wonder what would happen if you had someone consuming a SAD (standard american) vs someone consuming a clean, high fiber, whole foods diet with the same amount of calories, would it elicit the same results if the macronutrient ratio were the same?

[mamaspank]

I don't think any fruit is bad for you. I just think the rule "Everything in moderation" applies to most everything. I love pineapple, but I just have one serving. I weigh all my food so as to be as accurate as possible in controlling my calorie intake. I am never as strict when I am just maintaining however.

[JayEll]

Hey evelove,

I believe that as far as energy goes, it's the same. I managed to get fat eating delicious, mostly organic whole foods, for example. Just too much of them.

Some folks use online calorie trackers like FitDay, The Daily Plate, and others. I use FitDay, and it allows me to plan my nutrient ratios as well as my daily calories. I'm currently using a ratio of 30:45:25 protein:carb:fat.

I think the effect on weight would be the same whether it was 500 calories of, say, beets, or 500 calories of sugar. The effect on metabolism and blood sugar, however, would be very different.

It doesn't have to be confusing, and you don't have to figure all of this out to lose weight. Balance is the key.

Jay

[Thighs Be Gone]

I know for me, my loss is quicker and more efficient the more whole foods I eat. My loss is slower (physically and psychologically) when I am eating crap my body doesn't really even recongnize or use beyond storing as fat. I guess it could be the sodium. It could also be that whole foods satiate my body. When I am eating them strictly I want for nothing and rarely feel tempted by smells and sights. There has been discussion here before about how "not all calories are created equally." I would have to say this holds true in my book.

[kaplods]

I'm less and less sure that "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie," not only for health, but even for weight loss.

Looking back at food journals, for example, it sure seems that on 1800 calories of high carb eating, I lose weight extremely slowly. On the same 1800 calories of low carb eating, I lose weight more consistently. I'm also WAY less hungry on lower carb (which could play some role in this, though I was being pretty diligent about accurate calorie counting). I'm told some of this is water retention related, as on a low carb diet your body tends to carry less water.

I think another part of it, is that on a reasonably (but not too) low carb diet, I have more energy - so I sleep better, but shorter and have more energy and stamina to be more active (so I burn more calories).

All things being equal, a calorie may be a calorie, but the thing is... all things aren't equal. You cannot insure that sleep habits, likelihood of fatigue, lethargy, energy level, stamina, interest and participation in exercise and calorie burning activities, underlying metabolic processes, digestion....... remain the same on different ways of eating. A calorie isn't a calorie because the assumption that the body processes all food the same way, is a flawed assumption.

If you are eating crap, and therefore feel like crap and sleep more and exercise less - you've thrown off the equation. Eating more can actually help you lose more, if it gives you more energy and stamina to exercise and therfore burn more.

Trial and error is the best way to find your optimal way of eating and number of calories. You may find (like I did) that you can lose more on more calories with some eating patterns. You may find it doesn't matter for you, where the calories come from (at least not for weight loss), but if you do notice that what you're eating effects your energy level, you do need to know that energy level is a part of metabolism. Eating what gives you optimal energy and stamina and interest in activity will optimize your calorie output, which means you get to eat more AND lose more.

We've even seen this in our fat cat. We reduced her food intake, and she lost a little weight, but then stopped moving. You couldn't even tempt her into her favorite game of string, and she slept, all of the time. We switched her to a higher quality of food (fewer carbohydrates, ironically enough), and she's doing better - but it's still a struggle (and she can't "sneak" food herself), so even for cats a calorie isn't a calorie.

[evelove]

Thank you so much for all the replies!

I feel silly to be hung up on something like this but it just bugs me. It hangs over my head when I am trying to decide btw a salad or a piece of pizza (caloires equvalent).

Part of me likes the salad bc it is filling and "Safe" but then the other part wants a slice of pizza bc it is more satisfying to the senses.

I do understand that it is balance, so maybe I am making it harder than it needs to be.

Also, I think that "whole foods" or "health foods" have been given a holy grail when it comes to weight (at least for me it was

I used to think that as long as it was whole, organic, unrefined, it was free

Then, when I was reading a book on raw foods that talked about how calories don't matter and it is "life energy", you can't get fat on raw foods and you will lose weight no matter how much you eat, well, that really messed with my head for a while

[CountingDown]

Jay is right - you CAN get fat on whole foods. I've been a vegetarian for 26 years. I ran a food co-op and ate whole foods - and got very fat. WW pasta in large quantities can wreak havoc on the body (as one example).

That being said, I think there is a LOT of evidence that says those of us that have been obese have bodies that behave differently than those that have never been overweight. To someone that HAS a satiety switch, they can eat whole foods in whatever quantity they wish and remain thin or normal weight. To those of us that are missing that switch, the results are very different.

[Thighs Be Gone]

The best thing I have found is calorie counting with the FOCUS being on whole foods. It doesn't mean it's a buffet all day, every day. Of course you can get fat on whole foods!

[aphil]

I have been a calorie counter for over 15 years...but at one point last year, I did a short stint of a few different plans to shake things up a bit and get me motivated again. One of those plans was WW, because a friend of mine is a leader.

There are actually very few fruits on WW that are 0 points. Most fall in the 1 point range PER SERVING. Also, when you are on WW, and you do the formula, you must do the formula for how many servings you are actually eating. The WW formula makes you calculate the calories, fat, and fiber in foods to get the Point value-BUT-there is a cap on the fiber grams. So...if you eat one serving of something that calculates out to be 0 Points, it is very possible that if you eat 2 or 3 servings of it...for it no longer to be 0 Points any longer. I hope this makes sense. Basically, they put a cap on the fiber grams in the formula so that people would not eat 20 servings of a 0 Point food all say long...and hinder their weight loss.

Also on WW, starchy more caloric vegetables like corn, peas, carrots, etc. are NOT free foods. Only the very low calorie veggies like celery, leafy greens, etc. are.

Lastly, when you calculate how many Points that you are to be eating per day (using your age, weight, activity level, etc.) having a few of the free or 0 Point value foods is actually built into the plan.

When I was on WW, at the time I had to eat around 1600 calories a day to lose weight. When I figured up how many calories I was eating per day on WW, it was very similar. The daily Points I was allowed was around 1400 per day, and by the time I added a 0 Point food or two in my day, and some of my Flex or Activity Points...then it averaged out to around 1600.

So...with calorie counting, you are doing the straight calories. If you are finding that you need to eat 1500 or 1700 or 1200 or whatever to lose weight, then it is what it is. With WW, it actually equals out to about the same...the plans are just devised a little differently...a little more like calorie cycling, because you might eat your daily Points only one day, and the next day you might eat your daily Points, plus some 0 Point foods and maybe some Flex or Activity Points. It is just a different plan...but they BOTH work.