What's that thing about calories? That 300 calories of chocolate isn't the same as 300 calories of broccoli.

[DontBiteTheBoobThatFeedsYou]

It's been mention on here in the past and it pricked my ears.

Can someone explain it to me?

I need to feel better about my grape addiction. I knew telling myself that the calories aren't quite as bad as they would be if I was eating chocolate.

It depends what metric you’re looking at. They’re the same amount of calories I.e. they provide the same energy, but broccoli has fibre, nutrients, vitamins etc, whereas chocolate has sugar, essentially. 300 calories of broccoli therefore gives you more nourishment than 300 calories of chocolate.

Well I guess you would have to eat a kilo of broccoli to get 300 calories, which would take longer to eat and leave you fuller than the chocolate.

Grapes are full of sugar anyway

Nah it wasn't that.

It was something else. Someone explained it really
well.
It has nothing to do with the volume. I'm not that daft!

Au contraire.

@WeAreTheHeroes

Au contraire.

The irony of your name.

Something to do with insulin & fibre too for the carbohydrates. Kilo of broccoli would make me feel ill

Is it that 300 calories of wagon wheels doesn't fill you so you eat more but 300 calories of chicken and veg is a full meal so you're more full?

The thing neither pp has said anything about volume. Refined carbs like cake and chocolate are easily used by the body. The body has to work harder to digest other foods, especially those containing more fibre. There's evidence that not all the calories in the harder to digest foods are absorbed.

Calorific density? I downloaded the Noom app and it talks about this a lot. Basically 300 calories worth of broccoli will fill you up for longer than the chocolate would because of the weight of the food vs calories or something like that

Not necessarily volume but quality of the food?

It depends on how the calories are provided.

Glucose requires virtually no processing so 100 calories of glucose are available immediately to the body hence used in diabetic medicines like hypostop or energy drinks. Also causes a rapid and high blood sugar peak which long-term has potential effects on how the pancreas and cells respond to insulin etc.

Complex carbohydrates take time and energy to break down and store so 100 calories of potato starch will give a longer but lower peak blood sugar, which gives the body more time to store it as glycogen in the liver or muscle rather than saturating that pathway and initiating the fat storage pathways...

Wish I hadn't bothered to explain now!

Is it to do with how many calories you expend in order to digest it. So (completely made up numbers) 300 calories of broccoli takes 250 calories to digest, but 300 calories of chocolate only takes 50. I once read that celery is negative calories because of this.

Disclaimer, I could be talking bollocks.

It is also to do with how accessible the calories are. So a stick of celery uses more energy to break down into accessible calories than chocolate. Plus all the time it takes you to eat the celery means you aren't eating chocolate.

@WeAreTheHeroes

Wish I hadn't bothered to explain now!

I was going to be explain too - but OP is a bit rude.

Just eat the grapes for heaven's sake

Why would anyone need to feel better about eating some grapes

This isn't a serious question from an adult is it?

The thing neither pp has said anything about volume. Refined carbs like cake and chocolate are easily used by the body. The body has to work harder to digest other foods, especially those containing more fibre. There's evidence that not all the calories in the harder to digest foods are absorbed.

excellent explanation

didn't they recently find nuts are around 10/15% lower in calories than labelled through similar

Essentially, the more complex the molecule (e.g. starch, protein, complex fats) the harder they are to break down. Your body does more work carrying these processes out and also releases that energy slower, leading to less hunger over a period of time, compared to simple sugars.

And that's why diets high in lean protein and leafy veg are good for weight loss whilst building lean muscle.

I think you're right about nuts @ivykaty44.

@weareheros, I thought you said on the contrary to me saying "I'm not daft"

I thought you were being rude.

But given your response since, I guess you were referring to something else?

A pp definitely referred to volume.

However you explained exactly what I was after, thank you.

Is this a bit like the muscle weighs less than fat debate? Essentially a pound of fat and a pound of muscle weigh the same but are ofc very different.

That wasn't supposed to be an angry face but a pink one!

There is emerging science that suggests ultra processed food is not burned off by the body in the same way as unprocessed food. If you measured calories burnt by someone who's just eaten the chocolate, they'll be burning less than the person who ate broccoli/an unprocessed food with the same calories/fat/protein/sugar as the chocolate.

Essentially our bodies haven't evolved to recognise ultra processed food as food or something.