Calories from calories are vastly different, for example red meat (beef mostly)
anything non gmo etc.
A balance is important but fewer calories says nothing.
A balance is important but fewer calories says nothing.
https://www.hubermanlab.com/episode/controlling-sugar-cravin...
One of the key takeaways for me was the “calories in- calories out” (CICO) model of metabolism and weight regulation and how specific macronutrients (protein, fat, carbohydrates), fiber and sugar can modify the CICO equation.
People tend to think that a calorie consumed is a calorie utilised irrespective of how the body actually processes that calorie.
The definition of a calorie is "a unit of energy equivalent to the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 °C (now often defined as equal to 4.1868 joules)." i.e not what our body is doing to our food when we eat it.
The example used in the episode is that of a handful of almonds, say, 160 calories. The fibre content of the rusk causes approx 30 calories of those almonds to not actually be digested by you but by your gut microbiome instead!
A good rule of thumb is to ignore health or nutrition advice that goes off on GMOs.
> fewer calories says nothing
There is a lot of research that suggests otherwise [1]. Metabolism is messy. Less of it means less cellular damage.
[1] TFA