2:02: 🔬 Calories are a measure of energy in food, but determining calorie content is complex. 4:02: 🔬 The Atwater factors used to calculate calories in food are outdated and do not account for the complexity of different foods. 8:06: 🥜 Grinding nuts changes the energy absorption and calorie content. 11:05: 🥜 Chewing nuts only releases about 10% of the energy in the nut, with the rest being released in the gut. 14:37: 🔍 Calories absorbed from the same handful of nuts can vary significantly between individuals, and food labels do not accurately reflect this variation or the health impact of the food. 19:30: 🍽 Calorie calculations on food labels are not accurate for all foods and can vary between individuals, and calorie counting is an ineffective way of maintaining weight loss. Recap by Tammy AI
I don't think the last one is a reasonable conclusion (even from this video's own analysis), because if her findings are correct, then that means the food labels could only overestimate the number of calories, so those counting calories are likely to be eating less calories than they think, which can only be good news for their weight loss prospects. For those counting calories and wishing to GAIN weight or maintain their weight, then calorie counting would be much less useful.
They do, it's a maximum value based on complete combustion. If you know the maximum, but it may be less when absorbed, you're in a good position to set your limits.
They certainly aren't offering any alternative if we want to consider the energy in the food we're eating. If I've a choice between a bag of peanuts, or almonds, or cashews then the only way to see which will give me the most/least energy is by comparing the calories given on the back of the pack!
@@FreeFlyerUk what specific body? Do you understand now? People process different food differently, so changing the calorie number on food labels wouldn't be a good change. Besides what stops someone from grounding those almonds themselves? Would that mean that they create energy from nothing looking to the food label? Sucrose is 4 kcal, but fructose can't be used as energy that easily as glucose. So is it 2 kcal, 3 or still 4? And what about the amount of fiber in your overall meal? What about soluble fiber that coats the small intestines? There are too many variables. n my opinion it is best to alltogether remove calories from food labels. Counting protein, fats, carbs and fiber is more important than calories that are misleading people in questions of health. People want to lose weight, so they still look at calories, while it is their health and macronutrient profile that are important.
As a triathlete and nutrition coach, I don't truly count so much the Kcals; but go on how much I know I am eating by feeling full. There i also much more to this, take for example how much warmer I get after eating a very filling meal, this means I expect I have consumed too many Kcals, as the body heats up and has undergone a thermometabilic reaction based on higher than needed Kcals.
Fascinating. This episode along with other Zone podcast helps me ...start to understand how complex our motablaliz really is. Life style, food type, rest, activities... environment and methods used to grow what we eat, plus food processing and packing...all impact our life. What's clear to me, is the fact we are also different.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:26 📊 Calorie counting is common, but accuracy of food labels is questionable. 03:38 🏭 Food labels use Atwater factors, but these don't reflect individual differences. 10:23 🧬 Individual variation affects calorie absorption due to genetics, microbiome, and more. 15:01 🌰 Food structure impacts calorie release; whole vs. processed foods matter. 17:11 🍽️ Calorie labels don't account for food's impact on health; metabolism matters. Made with HARPA AI
Now, this was a nuanced, science-focused, honest discussion about nutrition. I remember when I found out the difference between the calories present vs. the calories absorbed, and in almonds no less just like she was talking about! Then you start realizing that companies are capitalizing on that (the calories in these nuts suddenly went from 200 to 170? Wow, funny how food corps are quick to change their labeling and tell the truth when it benefits them 😄). If there is one metric that needs to go, it's the calorie, especially our application of it as a transitive measurement across _all_ foods. It's a measurement of heat, nothing else. Well, I guess it can also be used to denote portion size, context dependant.
If you keep reasonable track of your calorie intake and weigh daily, you get a pretty goid idea of the number at which you'll lose, maintain or gain weight. This is useful, as that number varies significantly with factors like age, gender, height and activity level. Not many of us are the notional one-size-fits-all 2000-calorie daily 'average' on labels.
Agreed! Consistency is more important than accuracy. This podcast episode was a disappointment. A quantitative method for steering people towards their objectives in weight gain/loss and healthcare is more useful than stating that everyone is unique, there are many variables and therefore... [end episode]
People use the calorie counts to guide what and how much they eat. It does sound like the counts need to be updated. But the current counts may be good enough to guide individuals - eating more or less calorie dense foods, and eating more or less of a food.
Another fascinating interview. I don't think is was mentioned but of course each person is unique in shape and size and this can effect how much of the energy they eat and absorb is used. So if someone is morbidly obese they will burn more callories just moving around than say a thin person. But if they, on the other hand, do very little exercise than the callories they eat will just keep being stored. The human body is an incredibly efficient machine. Most of us eat way too much food.
The main point I took away from this interesting talk, but which I don't think was actually stated, is that the total calories stated on labels are unlikely to be under-estimated, but could actually be significantly more than the body can convert into energy. So that sounds like good news for those calorie counters who are using declared calories in their bid to lose weight.
But the numbers bias against whole foods by overestimating the calories absorbed from them, whereas the ultra-processed food labels are more accurate since you absorb almost 100% of the calories.
@@makeadifference4all That's actually not entirely correct. If you watch the podcast on ultra processed food you'll know that the ground nuts used in today's podcast would not count as 'ultra processed' but rather 'processed'. Cooking is a form of processing and is literally designed so that we'll get more calories and nutrition than we would out of the food if it was consumed raw.
I would think, that current calorie intake recommendations, are based on the "faulty" bomb-calorimeter measurements. So the net result of counting label-calories wouldn't end up terribly wrong irl. The great takeaway here, I believe, is the large uptake difference between highly processed vs. whole foods (i.e. ground vs. whole nuts). And the individual variance in human digestion. Those two factors render the current labeling kinda useless for planning individual caloric intake.
This is if you're calorie counting to loose weight but there will be a great amount of people doing the opposite. I do think it is better this way around though...
@@loot6 I don't know what packaged foods with cooked nuts you're thinking about, but I am referring to items like nut butter or products with almond flour, where the nuts have been finely ground. Of course, you also could make nut butter or almond flour at home with a food processor, minus the unhealthy hydrogenated fats added to most nut butter.
Thank you Zoe for all the valuable information on Science and Nutrition. I was really interested on these subjects all my life and I'm so glad I found your amazing informative podcast. I cannot wait to view everyone of your podcasts, and learn so much about the way we look at food and it is absorbed by each individual. It is so amazing!
@@normanbell-br7nfare you counting calories or changing portion sizes? If calorie counting worked as some claim. I would loose the same amount of weight if I reduced my daily food intake of 1) 1,000 less kcal of peanuts 2) 1,000 kcals less of extra blended peanuts 3) 1,000 kcals if sugar 4) 1,000 kcals of icing sugar 5) 1,000 kcals of gelatine If calorie counting was the right answer. These would all have the same effect on weight loss or gain. What you have probably done is portion control and called it calorie counting
thats great! probably you did not loose all that weight for counting calories (which is a fantasy) but for eating not enough and putting your meals into order.
@@stephenwilliams3213 I'm always interested why some people get so invested in trying to prove someone is wrong when they have a positive story to tell. I count calories daily, other than the days when I dont bother. Ive lost over a hundred pounds in about 3 years, I'm pretty happy with how I eat, how stress free I find it and how much weight I've lost. I don't presume it works for everyone and I definitely don't tell people that works for them is some kind of 'claim'.
Speaking about what we do and do not absorbed we need to start watching the medications we put people on. I suspect all the meds seniors get put on is why they dont absorb B12 and magnesium, B1 a lot as I just recently started some meds and it blocks B12 being vegan it hit me fast and hard! But also skin texture deteriorated, I had amazing youthful skin but medication destroyed it with in 2 months! I started checking into it and all the most common medications cause nutrition to not be absorbed normally and it sure does apear to be affecting our health!
Peanut butter is actually my weakness but now being more aware of its absolutely prodigious calorie content has enabled me to cut back much more easily. I now occasionally indulge in peanut butter powder which is less damaging. Or so they claim.
you know--I started adding plain whole nuts to my sandwich instead of the paste. Yeah, sometimes it's messy, but oh so tasty! Look at it as a challenge! How many nuts are you going to drop this time? :)
PB is definitely my weakness. However, I have started to buy crunchy PB and then I also take some , put it in a jar, mix it up with chopped mixed nuts and seeds. I have celiac disease so no bread for me.I eat it straight from the jar! I love it. For my son I make sprouted grain bread with PB + chopped nut and chopped dry figs or apricots and he loves it too.
Calorie counting helped me lose 3 stone (being 6'6" I thought I could hide it!) over a year ago. I just didn't have the discipline otherwise. Such was the calorific deficit, I was bound to lose weight. Using the Zoe app and programme has enabled me to tailor my diet, and whilst I still count calories (because of my lack of discipline) I also have found I am feeling benefiting from the Zoe programme and the advice on foods good for me. I do think a podcast on the importance of exercise and how this interacts with food, blood fats, blood sugar etc, would be very helpful. If exercise can then be factored into the app in some way that would be great.
If only for a guideline present labelling can work for weight control -- Nearly everyone I know who do moderate activity would certainly lose weight if they set their limit to 1800 cals even eating all 'junk' food . Many many people are in fact eating way more than they assess ...
Tracking your food intake and macros still enables someone to see how their body reacts to their food choices. Regardless of slight variation in how many calories your body absorbs, as long as your body is handling it well (energy balance) then it's fine. IF HOWEVER you are eating 2000kcal (as per label) but are gaining weight then you can use digestive "hacks" such as eating whole nuts instead of ground. And increasing calories from protein. Increasing wholefood forms of calories rather than processed. Increasing fibre etc without necessarily changing the calories being tracked.
FAO Sarah - at 14:41 you describe the calorie absorption disparity between 2 people eating the same measure of whole almonds. What was the deciding factor in why there were 700-odd calories adrift between them, please?
So, putting calories aside for a moment, the fact that someone might gain (for example) only about 50% of the calories from certain amount of nuts, versus another person, means that he absorbed less fats (or carbs and proteins)? It's much more alarming than miscalculating daily caloric intake. Also, it makes it obvious why eating whole nuts (against ground ones) raise blood fats by much lesser extent, if much of those fats weren't absorbed by the body.
This is so good to hear. I've been saying this on diet sites for years, that people never measure poo when doing their basic Energy In vs Energy ourt equations. But it's even worse than that be aude different people (maybe because of gut flora and other reasons) retain or pass though... Metabolise, foods in different ways.
You don’t need to measure poo. A person’s weight trend over time is sufficient to say whether they’re in a calorie deficit, calorie surplus, or in balance. If I weigh 87 kilos on average from September 1 to 7 and I weigh 83 kilos on average from December 1 to 7, chances are pretty good that I’ve been in an overall deficit over those three months. Reverse those numbers and I’ve been in a surplus.
It really is about time people stopped referring to ‘calories’ as a means of gauging the effective energy found in food-like substances. A bomb calorimeter is an isolated/closed thermodynamic system and human beings are not! The human body is an open system. Calories are a measurement of heat energy so you cannot absorb calories; you can’t absorb photons!!! It’s a mass balance, so only grams of carbs, fats and protein will have any bearing as to whether one will gain or lose weight and this also subject to a variety of other variables like digestive enzymes, bile, relative insulin levels as carbs will send it through the roof whilst protein a lot less and fat even less. The thermic effect of protein plays a part too so calories are busted as a tool of utility for anything really because you can’t accurately measure calories expended either. Sarah was heading in the right direction but I definitely wouldn’t eat nuts as a good source of fats; no way! High in lectins and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Toxic!
Ultra-processed foods have three strikes against them. First, they often undergo refining that removes nutrients but adds sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats. Secondly, as this episode explains, they can make more fats and calories bioavailable. Finally, the processing often makes their consumption easier and faster per calorie so they are easily overconsumed.
That makes them better foods. Better fuel. The problem if any at all with supposed UPF or even made up junk food, is that they are far far too good foods, super fuels. Making it very easy to eat more fuel than we have need or use for. They certainly do not deserve any demonising or condemnation, as they are so very good. These modern fads are just that, fads. Nothing wrong with great fuel foods.
@@nicholaspostlethwaite9554If more fuel with less nutrition is your goal, then ultra-processed foods are for you. But as we see in countries awash with ultra-processed foods, they lead many people to obesity and diabetes.
@@annettestephens5337 Perhaps though that is not any part of the spurious case made out against the invented unreal categories of such foods. Further lack of 'nutrients' is not any problem anyone in developed world places certainly, suffers from effectively. If it were simple supplements would quickly and easily remedy it. (technically, fat, carbohydrate, sugars, protein etc. are the real important life sustaining nutrients, but the food fad industry tends to mean vitamins and mineral, trace elements) UPF is a lie, made up for promotion of and by the food fads, diet clans, supplements, industry. Example, best known perhaps nutrient deficiency disease is Scurvy. No epidemic of it exists now.
@@nicholaspostlethwaite9554 About the malnutrition issue...... for many many years of my adult life I suffered with constipation and gas pain and bloating after meals. I tried desperately the improve my gut microbiome, following government guidelines, yet got sicker and sicker. I felt wretched despite eating a so called ‘healthy’ diet. I was diagnosed with IBS, was extremely undernourished and a DEXA scan showed I had Osteoporosis. 3 years since I began eating animals fats and proteins, very little fibre and zero UPF I am nolonger malnourished and a recent DEXA scan shows I now have Osteopenia (less severe form). I’m convinced that if inflammation is going on in the guts then malnutrition is certainly possible.
The example of whole almond vs ground almonds (such as in nut butter)...so there's a 30% less caloric and nutrient content in whole almonds compared to ground almonds due to the cell wall factor. But this is a specific food. To what extent does this nutrient density apply to other foods??
Tim, Sarah...could you then speak to the issue of protein? As a WFPB eater ( rare and small portions of animal products, only 1-2/ week) I was relying on the protein of nuts/ seeds and nut butters for my protein intake, PB and almond butter being my main sources. I do eat likely 50 to 100g/ day of nuts too. So should I infer then also the protein content is not absorbed and waste in the toilet bowl?
The real problem is not with single foods but with processed foods. All the packaging labels are produced by putting single ingredients into a database and turning out a label based on the combination. You get rounding errors going in and then you get more rounding errors when you subdivide into 100g servings and then Recommended servings. Then you get the divide between total carb (us standard) and net carb (eu standard) How much of that fibre is actually inert?. I presume zoe have actually put the muffins in a bomb calorimeter?
Those errors you mention are fairly irrelevant in the context that all ingredients are variable in their nutritional values anyway. Source, seasonality, variety processing method… are all factors which will affect the actual nutritional values (including trace nutrients) of any specific portion. In other words, rounding errors are masked by natural variability.
Id be interested to know if there is a risk of nutrient depletion besides for calories in the whole nut vs kitchen ground nut vs commercially ground nut. Very interesting to know just how resistant the cell walls would be against something like stomach acid
Well if you only ate nut butter and enough nuts to get your YOU enough vitamin X. You changed to whole nuts. You would end up being deficient in vitamin X So while this video was aimed to weight loss, It does have negative like less nutrient absorbed
Excuse my ignorance ,i eat a lot of almond nuts on the zoe program,they score 100 for me and are gut boosters ,but i m not sure from the podcast whether i would be better or worse off eating ground instead of whole almonds to get the full benefit of them.
But it's not a podcast, is it, because you have to run the pointless video streaming side and watch 2 heads talking in order to hear the audio. And I can't get just the audio of the video on my podcast app.
Not really sure what the solution is here- its more confusing now. I guess the solution is to just stick to the labels regardless unless someone builds an app that give you a more accurate info 🤔 Another great podcast with some real interesting info nonetheless...
On the flip side, hikers might be better off with nut butter and dried fruit on a weight for energy basis, vice a "trail mix" based on nuts. And for traveling rations, pemmican (dried powdered meat and berries, held together with fat) was a historic food that maybe was intuitively developed from what we now understand s little scientifically.
I've always wondered whether all calories are the same. For example if you eat 30 apples is it really the same as one small piece of chocolate, even if they nominally have the same number of calories.
I would say definitely not, for the reasons discussed in the video. Another aspect is that dietary fibre is a kind of carbohydrate, but is not absorbed at all. Therefore any food high in fibre will result in lower calorific absorption in comparison to a low fibre food of the same calorie content.
The calories are the same, i.e. what would be released in a bomb calorimeter, however our bodies at not bomb calorimeters, therefore the amount of calories that are available to be absorbed by your body will be different.
Food calories are 1000 calories in physics; where I live food packaging notes the more precise "kcal" instead. You are correct, but unfortunately the two terms are conflated in English, and my previously not understanding this led me to some wild imagining about how cold exposure might help with weight loss. If only it were so!
Very informative! So an apple can have different amount of nutrients based on how ripe it is. Then those nutrients are differently absorbed based on what you do with it: Eat whole Chop Blend Pure Heat Then each person will absorb differently nutrients from the above. It also matters what that apple is eaten with! .. To know the answer, I guess there's no other solution than Zoe's app, is it? 😜
The "calories are rubbish" claim is rubbish. Calorie counts give us a *maximum* value. That is no different than, say, the manufacturer's claim that a battery will last "up to" a cerain number of hours. In other words, for people who want to lose weight, and that is most people, a calorie count is one of the best guidelines they can possibly have.
Confusing episode. What's your message? Sounds like 'some foods might have fewer calories than it says on the tin, so you could eat more than you do now'. Surely not what you want people to do?
Fascinating … but what about the extra calories that I burn chewing on those whole nuts … or that I even burn dicing a pineapple rather than buy ready diced pineapple? 🤔
Calorie counting can still be used in dieting as a relative measure. eg if you are not loosing weight you can reduce the number of (food label) calories until you do - assuming you eat the same type/preparation of foods.
Hi, I'm interested to understand more about BMR. I heard Chris Van T speak on this topic on a podcast, and his assertion seemed to be that BMR was absolute and if you ate more than it, you gained weight, and if you ate less than it you gained weight, but that it was a constant that would be burned every day no matter what you did Exercise-wise, and by extension therefore Exercise has no bearing at all on weight loss as it's only the calories in vs your BMR that matter. Have i understood this correctly?
@stephenwilliams3213 well, it does make a certain amount of sense.. your body has inherent amount of energy it is able to burn. That's its reserves. It burns that every day regardless. It's a budget. What I don't quite get is what happens with extreme exercise where like the tour de France they are burning 2 or 3 times their BMR every day.. Do you just re-baseline the budget based on the level of exercise? You are supposed to multiply by a factor, so I guess it's just a bigger factor
@@animerecapclub still not makin sense. The BMR is pretty irrelevant unless your in hospital bed all day. Your BMJ change through life. When people say exercise does not effect weight loss, they say this as people who exercise hard often eat more etc Exercise does help weight loss if you have “will power” to ignore hunger pains etc. Most people can’t/don’t sustain this and end up back at the original weight.
I think I absorb a lot more calories than average as I have been away with friends that are the same size as me and we eat and drink exactly the same, and they stay the same weight and I gain 6lb. I’m more active than all of them too! 😢
Definition of a calorie is wrong (2.25). It's not the amount of energy needed to raise a litre of water by one degree Celsius. It's the amount of energy needed to raise 1 gram of water. i.e. one millilitre, by 1 degree Celsius. I wish she did not start every sentence with, "So ..."
Very interesting, this makes a lot of sense when learning that people in concentration camps used to chew their meager bread rations for a long time to reduce their hunger, ie extract all possible calories to stay alive.
Most products in the U.K. (supermarket) will be send off 3 different packs and a average taken from it. That is how nutrient content calculated. But from batch will be different. Like people even identical twins have slightly different body composition, At extreme end mackerel changes fat % by about 25% depending if the fish is pregnant
@@stephenwilliams3213: 1) Nutritional values are considered accurate if they’re +/- 10%. 2) Many small manufacturers base their nutritional values off tables or databases of standard values rather than chemical or physical analysis of samples - and this is accepted practice. He’ll still be good values within the +/- 10% margin. Also, always remember that the base foods are natural ingredients, not compounds out of a factory, so expect a range of natural variations.
@@chriswalford4161 1) nutritional values can change a bit though. As above with makeral when they get pregnant But other foods like belly pork, streaky bacon vary massively
@@chriswalford4161 2) then you are only as good as the data on a table someone else did many years ago. 3 composites from the products much better as reflective as the ingredient(s) you are using. Once you said all this. Most people don’t weigh their food anyway and then weigh edible portion. Ie if I eat a apple, who would weigh the core after eating
There are no sources here at all. How exactly do you know how many calories a person has absorbed from a handful of nuts? Unless you have NanoTech I don't see how. On average we know as you mentioned from 20 years of research input of food and output and the calories in so we can get an idea at huge scale, but an individual will also have varying calories needs. I can't see any even remotely accurate why of know this at an individual level.
Why don't you study the nuts people actually eat, like peanuts. Almost no one eats ground up nuts! Basically as far as I know only used in baking, the few who home cook fancies. Whole almonds equally rare rare food. For what little it is worth, when I was reducing my weight a fraction, it was impossible to be eating any peanuts, my 'vice' snack. trying to then go back to a steady weight, lapsing, relaxing, on the peanuts the prime reason a couple of kilos went back on. Dieting, control the amount you eat, calories are the best numerical guide. But stick to the same food every day. Weigh stuff! Like x grams of potatoes. Do not lose weight that week, take something out. Repeat, till it works. It is not rocket science. Needs no diet plans. The most calorific probably the best to reduce to maintain some sort of volume, more bearable. I suspect the problem with the variability of calories hits those that eat different things all the time and are relying on the numbers to cross compare and match each day's intake. Big mistake imo variety.
The content here is great, but I can’t be the only that finds Jonathan pretending to not already know this stuff really grating? I know you’re trying to make this accessible but it really does put me off watching…
I make seed bread with almond flour. It has 2 g. Of carbs per slice…This info on the ground almonds has me rethinking my baking substitutions that I’ve been making. I avoid wheat flour because US wheat gives me diarrhea, while bread in Germany does not produce symptoms. I came to the conclusion that I’m allergic to Roundup…The ground NUT flours have allowed me to still have a sandwich now and then. It’s an ongoing process of how to cope with US agricultural toxins.
May I suggest you invest in ancient grains like Einkorn or do as I do and mill organic, non-GMO wheat. No pesticides or herbicides to add more toxins to your body. Good luck in your bread making.
Are you sure it’s not because of the metallic iron that is added to enriched bread? I’m not sure what’s common in Germany but in the US most bread has added iron which is known to cause gastrointestinal distress.
@@lukececrle2944 My understanding is that oats and wheat are sprayed with glycophosphates in the US, while EU has forbidden this as a practice. I now raise many organic fruits and veggies, therefore I know they are as free from pesticides and herbicides as I can get them. Much healing of GI tract has taken place as a result. I ferment a lot of foods. It’s been a real immersion into microbes…in the soil and in my gut. Oak leaves get mulched and composted into beautiful top soil. This is a long way from eating Wonder Bread as a kid! Yes, what you mentioned about iron being added to bread may be an issue. I have NOT had a slice of white bread probably in 30 years…
documentary idea: "20 Years a Poop Burner" excellent video, show/share this video with members of the "Church of CICO" to help them escape their calorie accounting and focus on real and healthy foods and such :)
Hi I have seen many of your videos and I found them very informative when it comes to health which in my opinion is the most important thing. BUT I although you also always talk about weight loss I never saw a video about realistic long term weight loss goal. You always talk about weight loss in general term as if everyone could lose weight on a healthy diet. But can everyone can ? Many people are not even overweight but they want to loose weight can they ? Many people are barely overweight but try to reach a very specific weight they have in their own mind as their ideal weight. Can they ? Many people who have been obese almost their entire life dream to be thin. Is that even possible for them when their body have been used to such a huge amount of weight their entire life. Same with people who are super fit and healthy already on a healthy diet but who are still trying to loose more weight can their body really do that long term in a healthy way. Or will their body bounce back. What are realistic and unrealistic weight loss goals long term on a healthy diet for weight loss. What about weight plateau and yo yo diet on a healthy weight loos diet ??? You never addressed those very important points clearly. My questions is for grown adults.
I wonder whether Early Man had worn down molars from leisurely chewing rather than from using stones to grind grains? Maybe we should go back to Neanderthal chewing rather than rush,rush,rush?!
Great video. It's a shame that the ZOE video thumbs are getting more and more 'tacky'. I guess it's attracting more viewers, but makes it look a bit cheap and untrustworthy.
@@StudioHoekhuis Well after the thumbnail has done its job and caught their attention, no doubt they'll watch the video and form an opinion. No harm done.
@@loot6 my point, thanks, but she barely mentions insulin and carbs. It's almost like she's in the dark ages, but I didn't watch to the end I'd had enough.
@@stephenwilliams3213I reread my comment and I think it is confusing. I'm trying to make the point that calories in is still the most important factor to weight gain. A label could be off my a factor of 100 and it will not change the basic truth and weight gain.
@@natethetoe386 you said “claim they are” how do they figure they are. I can say I under ate 200kcals today. In reality unless I am eating foods like sugar and cooking oil. There will be lots of variations. It’s working out what less kcals is! That figure changes as your weight goes down etc Okay if you eat 100kcsls a day you will loose weight quickly. Eat 10,000 and your will gain weight quickly. But eating at levels to maintain a consistent weight control over many months calorie counting has draw backs, Eg if you need 2,500 and switch from eating 500kcals of peanut to 500kcals your weight will change even though kcals the same.
@@stephenwilliams3213 Hunger occurs once a person hasn't eaten in a while and if food is eaten properly should only occur a few times throughout the day. Appetite is our desire to eat. This is determined by cravings, boredom, or emotions rather than actual hunger and can occur at any time of day. So what is your point?
@@baqirhemraj7639 point is Hunger starts to occur about 4 hours after eating. Appetite is feeling that you want to eat. When many people say they eat when they feel hungry. They in reality mean appetite. My appetite increases when I smell a fresh bacon roll. My hunger does not change. The point is people get mixed up between the 2
@@stephenwilliams3213 That is the difference between you and me, I fast do not eat anything and have no water for the whole day on Mondays and Thursdays. The rest of the days I eat only when I am hungry and that to moderation. I am also able to ignore my hunger and that is why I am not overweight. I can survive and so everybody including you. My theory is that a person can be in a fasting mode or an eating mode
@@baqirhemraj7639 how do you know you are different? I fast 24 hours from Sunday to Monday, Then 14 to 20 hours until Friday. Eat normally on Saturday and Sunday until 6pm So I am quite hungry on Monday evening, especially after training at the end of my fast, However I have no appetite (the key point) until I eat my 1st mouthful on Monday night. I train hard and heavy, so I do eat a lot. Hence the difference between hunger and appetite.
2:02: 🔬 Calories are a measure of energy in food, but determining calorie content is complex. 4:02: 🔬 The Atwater factors used to calculate calories in food are outdated and do not account for the complexity of different foods. 8:06: 🥜 Grinding nuts changes the energy absorption and calorie content. 11:05: 🥜 Chewing nuts only releases about 10% of the energy in the nut, with the rest being released in the gut. 14:37: 🔍 Calories absorbed from the same handful of nuts can vary significantly between individuals, and food labels do not accurately reflect this variation or the health impact of the food. 19:30: 🍽 Calorie calculations on food labels are not accurate for all foods and can vary between individuals, and calorie counting is an ineffective way of maintaining weight loss. Recap by Tammy AI
2:02: 🔬 Calories are a measure of energy in food, but determining calorie content is complex. 4:02: 🔬 The Atwater factors used to calculate calories in food are outdated and do not account for the complexity of different foods. 8:06: 🥜 Grinding nuts changes the energy absorption and calorie content. 11:05: 🥜 Chewing nuts only releases about 10% of the energy in the nut, with the rest being released in the gut. 14:37: 🔍 Calories absorbed from the same handful of nuts can vary significantly between individuals, and food labels do not accurately reflect this variation or the health impact of the food. 19:30: 🍽 Calorie calculations on food labels are not accurate for all foods and can vary between individuals, and calorie counting is an ineffective way of maintaining weight loss. Recap by Tammy AI
