Fat vs. Calories

[EarlJam]

I get the basics of losing weight. Eat less, exercise more. Moderation and all that.

I’ve been successful at losing weight multiple times to get down to a desired weight.

That said, here’s what I’d like to know more about:

Fat vs. Calories.

Which one of these will put weight on you the fastest/easiest?

The ear tells me “Fat.” Experience tells me “Calories.”

Again, I KNOW the wisdom of, “just generally lower amounts of each and exercise.” I get that. This is more of a scientific question that I pose to the all-powerful Internet Brain Machine known as DBR!

-EarlJam

[DukeUsul]

I'm not so sure that it's an either/or situation. The problem with fat, in general, is that it has a higher calorie/mass ratio than other ingredients in food (carbs, proteins, etc.). Calories are the real culprit for gaining weight, but fat has so many calories, that eating lots of fat means eating lots of calories means gaining weight.

Calories in Protein, Fat and Carbohydrates

My very basic understanding of the whole low-carb craze is not that foods high in proteins are inherently better than foods with carbs. I think the point is that eating more proteins will tend to make you feel fuller, longer, and thus eat less overall.

I tend to focus on reducing calories at the same time as limiting the intake of saturated and trans fats. I really don't have too much of a problem with eating mono- or polyunsaturated fats, as long as my overall caloric intake is within target. I also like to focus on foods with high dietary fiber content.

ETA: Oh and I also like to drink lots and lots of red wine... because it's good for me!

[OldPhiKap]

I get the basics of losing weight. Eat less, exercise more. Moderation and all that.

I’ve been successful at losing weight multiple times to get down to a desired weight.

That said, here’s what I’d like to know more about:

Fat vs. Calories.

Which one of these will put weight on you the fastest/easiest?

The ear tells me “Fat.” Experience tells me “Calories.”

Again, I KNOW the wisdom of, “just generally lower amounts of each and exercise.” I get that. This is more of a scientific question that I pose to the all-powerful Internet Brain Machine known as DBR!

-EarlJam

It's been a while since I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, but I think those are two different things. Calories measure the amount of energy required to burn food (or raise the temperature of water, but I'm not sure how that fits in on a biological level). "Fat" is a substance.

And, I think it takes more calories to burn an ounce of fat than it does to burn an ounce of most other substances. So, the more fat you eat, the more calories you need to expend in order to burn off the fat.

But I'm a lawyer, so that's probably all wrong. Although I'll sue the man that points it out.

[devil84]

I think EarlJam is talking about whether one should count calories or count fat grams, right? (Both popular methods of losing weight.)

Fat has 9 calories per gram, carbs and protein have 4 calories per gram, and alcohol weighs in at around 7 per gram. Fiber has no calories per gram (think lettuce and celery, here, or the cardboard box the pizza came in).

Because part of what makes us feel full is the quantity of food in the stomach, it seems that by cutting down on fats and alcohol and increasing fiber, we can eat the same quantity of food yet lose weight.

Too bad the flavor is in the fats and alcohol. One can only eat so many steamed vegetables, lean chicken breasts, fish, and other healthy calories. It when you get to the cheese, bacon, cakes, chocolate, and ice cream (common denominator = fats) that the calories come fast and furious, because nobody can eat "just one." So, in my expert opinion ("expert" meaning how to put weight on fast and keep it on ) I'll say "fats" puts weight on more than calories.

[unexpected]

Calories, Calories, Calories. They are the only things that matter.

Calories are your bodies food source. Fat is just package calories. People count fat grams because, if you reduce the amount of fat grams you intake (let's say you switch from regular dressing to non-fat, for example) and eat everything else the same, you will have ingested fewer calories for the day.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

You can avoid fat all you want and still put on plenty of weight. In fact, your body converts excess carbs to fat anyway if you don't get rid of them.

Typical calorie threshold for maintaining your weight is 2000 cals per day. You need to have a deficit of 3500 cals to lose a pound of weight. So if thru diet and exercise you can achieve a net deficit of 500 cals per day for one week, you will lose one pound.

The worst marketing scam ever to plague this country is the "Lite" and "Fat Free" versions of so many foods. It's an unfortunate signal for many people (myself included) to chow down with little thought of the consequences b/c the food is supposed to be healthier somehow.

It's really a simple equation and counting calories helps put it all in perspective when you realize you've blown your whole day with a single unhealthy meal or snack. Oh Chic-Fil-A, you beautiful, horrible temptation!

Also, a side note, I watch cholesterol % as well. It is scary how quickly some foods will put you over the top.

[mike88]

While it is true that a gram of fat has more calories than a gram of protein or carbs, the translation to how it affects weight gain is more complicated. I think our experience from the last twenty years, as well as a number of recent trials, suggests that low-fat diets are not superior to low-carbohydrate diets (which are usually higher in fat). One reason for this is that satiety (the feeling you are full) is not simply the amount of bulk in your stomach. Fat seems to produce more satiety, which (possibly along with inducing a state called ketosis) is why diets like Atkins don't have to be calorie-restricted- you just can't eat that much fat. Carbs, on the other hand, we can pretty much eat constantly.

So, to answer Earl Jam's question, I will say it is calories, but that the carbs matter, as a means of keeping calories in check. Whether it then matters if you have "good" fats (a mediterranean diet with lots of olic=ve oil) vs. any kind of fats (the basic Atkins approach) is not clear . . .

As a note, I don't think there is good evidence for worrying about dietary cholesterol - its relationship with heart disease is very weak. Again, its kind of confusing b/c dietary cholesterol is not the same as our blood/ serum cholesterol level, which is associated with heart disease.

-mike

[CathyCA]

Which one of these will put weight on you the fastest/easiest?

Are you trying to GAIN weight? If so, you suck.

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

I am trying to gain weight, and I suck at gaining weight... and I think most probably who are trying to gain weight actually suck at gaining weight... which is probably why their trying to gain weight...

so I guess your politically correct.

[gus]

You can avoid fat all you want and still put on plenty of weight. In fact, your body converts excess carbs to fat anyway if you don't get rid of them.

Typical calorie threshold for maintaining your weight is 2000 cals per day. You need to have a deficit of 3500 cals to lose a pound of weight. So if thru diet and exercise you can achieve a net deficit of 500 cals per day for one week, you will lose one pound.

The worst marketing scam ever to plague this country is the "Lite" and "Fat Free" versions of so many foods. It's an unfortunate signal for many people (myself included) to chow down with little thought of the consequences b/c the food is supposed to be healthier somehow.

It's really a simple equation and counting calories helps put it all in perspective when you realize you've blown your whole day with a single unhealthy meal or snack. Oh Chic-Fil-A, you beautiful, horrible temptation!

Also, a side note, I watch cholesterol % as well. It is scary how quickly some foods will put you over the top.

QFT. Calories burned > calories consumed = weight loss.

My caveat though - 2,000/day is an average. for me, I need about 2,400 to maintain. My wife needs about 1,750 to maintain. Everyone is different, but BMI is a good calculation to help understand what your body needs.

If you're trying to lose weight, count your calories, and do anaerobic exercises (eg, lifting), which can actually burn more calories than aerobic exercise.

[gus]

It's been a while since I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, but I think those are two different things. Calories measure the amount of energy required to burn food (or raise the temperature of water, but I'm not sure how that fits in on a biological level). "Fat" is a substance.

And, I think it takes more calories to burn an ounce of fat than it does to burn an ounce of most other substances. So, the more fat you eat, the more calories you need to expend in order to burn off the fat.

But I'm a lawyer, so that's probably all wrong. Although I'll sue the man that points it out.

You have the gist, but you're off a little bit.

Calories are a measure of energy. One calorie is the amount of energy required to raise one gram of water one degree celsius.

All living things need energy in some form. Food is how animals ingest energy: we break down the food to free up the chemical energy stored in it. Plants convert light into energy. Calories in food are simply a measure of how much chemical energy is stored within the food (that the human body is able to use). When animals consume excess energy, the body converts it to fat, which is an efficient method of storing chemical energy.

[OldPhiKap]

You have the gist, but you're off a little bit.

Calories are a measure of energy. One calorie is the amount of energy required to raise one gram of water one degree celsius.

All living things need energy in some form. Food is how animals ingest energy: we break down the food to free up the chemical energy stored in it. Plants convert light into energy. Calories in food are simply a measure of how much chemical energy is stored within the food (that the human body is able to use). When animals consume excess energy, the body converts it to fat, which is an efficient method of storing chemical energy.

Thanks, and let me make sure I'm straight on it. We often refer to "how many calories are in" a certain food. Isn't the more precise way to look at it is: "how many calories will be required to burn off" the cerain food? Aren't calories a process and not a substance?

[gus]

Thanks, and let me make sure I'm straight on it. We often refer to "how many calories are in" a certain food. Isn't the more precise way to look at it is: "how many calories will be required to burn off" the cerain food? Aren't calories a process and not a substance?

No - that's backwards.

Calories are neither a process nor a substance - they're just a measure of energy. "Energy" is simply a way of describing the ability to do work (in the physics sense) (eg, pumping blood, breathing, walking).

If a brownie has 450 calories, eating that brownie will not *burn* 450 calories, but will *provide* you with 450 calories. That is to say, your body will have obtained the ability to do more work.

If those are the only calories you consume, your body will burn those calories with just normal maintenance. If those calories are excess calories above what your body is burning, they will be stored in fat cells, for later use.

A good analogy is a cell phone plugged into the charger. The charger is providing energy (through electricity). The energy will give the phone the ability to do work - in this case, ring, play sounds, transmit sounds, etc. If the phone doesn't need all of the energy being provided, the excess will go towards recharging the battery for later use.

[OldPhiKap]

No - that's backwards.

Calories are neither a process nor a substance - they're just a measure of energy. "Energy" is simply a way of describing the ability to do work (in the physics sense) (eg, pumping blood, breathing, walking).

If a brownie has 450 calories, eating that brownie will not *burn* 450 calories, but will *provide* you with 450 calories. That is to say, your body will have obtained the ability to do more work.

If those are the only calories you consume, your body will burn those calories with just normal maintenance. If those calories are excess calories above what your body is burning, they will be stored in fat cells, for later use.

A good analogy is a cell phone plugged into the charger. The charger is providing energy (through electricity). The energy will give the phone the ability to do work - in this case, ring, play sounds, transmit sounds, etc. If the phone doesn't need all of the energy being provided, the excess will go towards recharging the battery for later use.

Thanks.

Now, if you can tell me how that equates to raising a gram of water one degree celsius, I'll have learned my lesson for the day. I assume it's an equivalent measure and not a metabolical thing?

[DukeUsul]

Thanks.

Now, if you can tell me how that equates to raising a gram of water one degree celsius, I'll have learned my lesson for the day. I assume it's an equivalent measure and not a metabolical thing?

It's an equivalent measure, more or less. The calorie is a former standard unit of energy. The food calorie we use to measure energy in food is technically a kilocalorie, or 1000 (standard) calories.

Most of the sciences use the Joule as a unit of energy and no longer use the calorie.

[OldPhiKap]

It's an equivalent measure, more or less. The calorie is a former standard unit of energy. The food calorie we use to measure energy in food is technically a kilocalorie, or 1000 (standard) calories.

Most of the sciences use the Joule as a unit of energy and no longer use the calorie.

Thanks! OPK