Like the title states do you believe that all calories are equal and that losing weight is a simple equation that to lose weight calories consumed must be less than calories used? There are many diets out there that claim eat this kind of food or stop eating this kind of food and you will lose weight and it doesn’t matter about the calories.

I have a strong opinion on this but I'm interested in your thoughts.

I do not believe all calories are equal. Its funny because I was just thinking about this tonight. Yes to a certain extent it is a matter of burning more than you consume. But there is such a difference in say the calories in a slice of white bread vs a slice of whole grain bread. I'll stop now or else I'll start ranting lol but basically I believe while having some calories everyday that aren't the most nutritious is ok, I strongly think that most calories should come from foods that are good for your body, not empty ones.

For me, no, not all calories are the same. I eat about the same calories on South Beach that I did on WW, but am able to feel fuller eating foods with whole grains and healthy fats than I did when eating foods on WW that weren't as healthy but the same calories. I lost weight faster eating this way, was more satisfied and dropped my cholesterol 30 points eating higher quality foods. On WW I tended to avoid eating any fat because I didn't want to use up my flex points. I would save my points to eat stuff later like chocolate muffins and other processed foods. They really didn't satisfy me like higher quality foods do. This is what has really clicked with me this time.

Nope.

At it's most basic, calories in vs. calories out works. Sure. But if you're eating empty calories and not nourishing your body, you can stall your weight loss and even cause it to reverse for a while.

And even if you continue losing weight, you can damage your body and your health, long term.

.

I don't believe all calories are equal (in several ways), and in fact I was able to prove it sufficiently for myself with my food journals. Anyone wanting to try it themselves needs to remember that you've got to write down absolutely everything you eat. And you can't trust one week's results, so you've got to be willing to write down what you eat, everything mouthful, for several weeks. Also keeping track of how hungry you are, and in general how you are feeling on the food plan can also be helpful.

On 1800 calories of higher carb eating (the more carbs, the more noticeable the effects - for me) I am hungry constantly, my fibromyalgia flares more, and the weight comes off very slowly. I'm more prone to water retention (I can tell water retention from plain ol' fat by the tightness of my wedding ring, and the imprint my socks leave on my ankles).

On 1800 calories of very low carb (Atkins induction low), I am not hungry at all, the weight (and water) come off at a much faster rate (at least 3 times as fast as on high carb), but I'm weak, lightheaded or dizzy and nauseous.

Carbs, especially refined and low fiber carbs, but even starchy "good carbs" (by South Beach Phase II definition) increase my hunger dramatically. The less fiber and more refined the carbs, the more pronounced the effect.

As a side note, on South Beach, not counting calories or portions, I don't gain weight, but I don't lose either. I need a portion control or calorie counting aspect, so I use an exchange plan I modified to eat fewer carbs. I try to make those carb choices from whole grain, high fiber carbs (the South Beach "good carbs").
_____________________________

I don't believe the hunger-carb cycle affects everyone. But especially for those with metabolic disorders like diabetes and insulin resistance (I have the latter, my husband the former) there is a distinct difference in the body's reaction to carbs. My husband's diabetic counselor explained the science behind it to us, and it makes me wonder if I've been insulin resistant all of my life (or at least since age 5).

Even for those without insulin resistance or a hunger response to carbs, I don't believe a calorie is a calorie, in the sense that "it doesn't matter what you eat." Even if we're not talking health, but just weight loss. A very unbalanced diet is likely to affect things that will affect your weight. If you're eating poorly, sleep, energy level, resistance to illness, stamina, and even lung capacity could be affected, affecting your ability and interest in exercising, etc. I think reducing weight loss to a mathamatical formula is neither effective or productive.

I was reading a "nutritionist book" (for lack of a better term!) that said if two women: same build/same height: eat the same number of calories, but one eats a low-fat diet (below the recommended amounts), and the other eats a high-fat diet (above national average, which is usually 20grams more than the recommended average), the woman who eats the higher-fat diet will be an average 8 lbs heavier than the low-fat diet lady.

I agree with PhotoChick's "Calories in vs Calories out". It's a great baseline, but you also want to look into other things, like balance in your diet. Making sure you're staying at (or under) the recommended amounts of the "bad" stuff, and at (or above) the recommended amounts of the "good" stuff!

My 2 cents

Its an interesting question.

If you aren't meeting your nutritional needs, your losses can stall. If you don't get enough macro and micronutrients, its a problem, and it will stall loss.

Similarly, if you aren't eating lots of veggies, plenty of protein, plenty of fiber, etc, you may be hungry. If you're getting lots of refined sugar and flour, and you're sensitive to that, it can trigger cravings. Both of these can make it harder to stay on plan, and that can cause weight loss stalls.

HOWEVER - lets say you can get you nutrient requirements in 1200 nutrient rich, whole foods, protein-and-fiber filled calories, and your weight loss level is 1400-1500 calories. Do I believe that filling that remaining 200-300 calories with less-healthy choices is going to stall your losses, so long as you don't eat things that trigger additional cravings and eating beyond that 200-300 calories of room you have?

From my experience, I don't believe it does. In fact, I believe that spending that small amount of calories on a "treat" can really help prevent much larger falls off the wagon later on.

Alright, this is going to be a long analogy, so bear with me.

For me, its like a budget. You have to take a good portion of your paycheck for rent, bills, food, basic necessities, and to invest in your future/save for retirement and emergencies/etc. These things are non-negotiables, and need to be a part of your budget. But lets say you have $200-300 left over at the end of the month, after meeting all of your needs and putting a reasonable amount of money away in your savings and retirement accounts.

You have two choices at this point. You can take that additional 200-300 dollars and put it away in your savings accounts. Eventually, you'll end up in a slightly better place financially, right? If every cent gets put away in savings, your accounts will be happy.

But you might start feeling deprived. You might start thinking "Ugh, every single dollar I have goes into this savings account". And that resentment might build, and build, until you blow up and go on a spending binge, spending thousands of dollars. You might spend a year's worth of that $200-300 a month surplus in an instant.

For me, I'd rather spend a bit at a time, more regularly, both in my finances and in my calories. My 150 calories of treat a day has helped stave off many a rich, 1000 calories worth of baked goods from the bakery down the street. A single chocolate caramel has prevented me from diving into half of a cake after 2 weeks of "being good".

Oh, totally, I agree with Mandalinn. I'm not saying you have to make sure that every calorie is nutritionally rich and never eat empty calories. Sometimes you need that treat or splurge or whatever. But I still think there are empty calories and nutritional calories ... and they're not equal.

.

Yes, absolutely. I just believe that both types have a place, and have often seen people interpret "nutritious calories" and "less-nutritious calories" as "must eat" and "never eat", which always makes me sad.

I agree with everything that's been said here. I don't think all calories are equal. I definitely think that what you eat is as important as how much you eat.

Not only in terms of making sure you aren't hungry and get enough nutrition but also in terms of how your body responds to the foods you eat. I've read the Sugarbusters book and "You on a Diet" and both emphasized that your body digests carbs, fat, and protein differently and responds differently to them. They cause your blood sugar and insulin levels to behave differently and that in turn impacts how your body stores fat. I do think that I could lose a little more weight, particularly stomach fat, if I were to follow the Sugarbusters diet. I'm not going to do it, but I think it would make a difference if I did. Then again, I never actually tried it, so who knows? (I got to the part about giving up all corn and corn products, not to mention bananas , and decided that Sugarbusters isn't for me. )

Well, speaking as a scientist, technically all calories ARE equal because the calorie is a measure of heat energy ...One food Calorie (1 kcal or 1,000 calories) is the amount of digestively available food energy (heat) that will raise the temperature of one kilogram of water one degree Celsius. I'm sure y'all needed to know that.

But, pragmatically, I completely agree with the others that foods with the same calories are not equal -- some are clearly more nutritionally-desirable than others. My body reacts differently to different foods too. I don't do well if I eat too much simple carbs, it tends to blood sugar swings and binges. Fiber and protein fill me up longer. I'm small and don't need a lot of calories, so I have to plan carefully to make sure that I'm maximizing nutrition so that I stay healthy. If I ate 1000 empty sugar-loaded calories, I'd just be sick.

As everyone has said, calories are clearly not equal in terms of nutrition. However, I do believe that, barring any major health problems that would change your ability to process certain foods, calories are equal in terms of weight loss. I found that to be true for myself when I lost 115 pounds, anyway. And it was true again when I gained back 80 during pregnancy!! I lost weight eating whatever I wanted within a certain calorie limit, and I gained it back eating a lot of healthy stuff (and a lot of unhealthy stuff too). It's an unpopular opinion on this board, but I've always found that as long as my number is right (my calorie limit), I will lose weight, even if I fill that number with Kit Kats and Doritos. Not that I do that every day or anything...

I suppose the bottom, BOTTOM line is - a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.

And therefore I *suppose* if I stayed within "my calorie budget", no matter what I was eating, I would most likely lose/maintain my weight.

But I'm not going to experiment to find out. My calories MATTER. They most certainly do have to be the "right" ones. If I filled my calorie allotment with cookies, fast food, bread, chocolate and the such - that would most definitely be setting myself up for failure.

Those foods make me binge-y and crave-y and basically just torture me. They're not satisfying to me and if they would be in my every day diet, instead of my once in a blue moon diet, I would never, ever have lost the weight and now maintained it. Of that I have no doubt.

What is working for me so far, is eating 'mainly' nutricious foods, but.. i do leave room in my daily allowance for sugar in my coffee..since this is a 'lifestyle' change, and not just a temporary diet, i had to decide if i wanted to go without sugar in my coffee forever? or learn to incorporate it in my daily allowance... i picked incorporate it lol...also, im on about 1800 cals per day.. and i exercise about 500-600 per day... if i am dying for a reg coke.. 134 cals in the bottles here, i make sure BEFORE i drink it, i get on the exercycle and work off at least 200 first.. that way i get my treat.. and most of the time it still leaves me under my 1800 calorie limit cause for a fatty i really dont eat much.. i gained most of my weight drinking 1.5-2 12 packs of coke per day.. its kinda funny really that for me to lose weight i have to eat more than i used to, actually MOVE.. i was such a couch potato, and limit my soda

I believe a 'caloris is a calorie" too. But I choose to eat healthy. I think your body needs nutrition, not a lot of empty calories. It's like a car. It will run if you get bad gas, but it will sputter along, even stopping at times. You need good fuel to run like it is supposed to. This is a little simplistic, I know, but you get the point!