Kilojules or Fat?

<[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Obviously, any energy you don't use turns into fat. But say if you were
to eat VitaBrits (Weat buiscuits) that has less than a gram of fat and
sugar pern 100g, could you still put on fat from the unused energy
(carbohydrates). In other words, other than too much sugar is bad for
you, is it that you should be looking at the energy over the fat in the
nutrition information? Could you put onb more fat, if you ate a
ice-cream less in kilojules (high in fat and sugar), but the VitaBrits
was more in energy than the ice cream(but less in fat and sugar), Could
you put on more fat?

energy balance is a rule of thumb for full meals over a longer period of
time, it is not useful for judging single food items or for short-time
effects since biochemical factors play a much bigger role here (insulin and
fat storage for instance when eating simple sugars and fat at the same
time.. or food components that influence satiety etc.).

The body regulates its calorie intake. Something in the modern diet causes
that regulator to malfunction. The key is not how many calories a single
portion of a particular food has. The key is whether that food will
influence the calorie regulator, which some people call an "appestat."

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Obviously, any energy you don't use turns into fat. But say if you were
to eat VitaBrits (Weat buiscuits) that has less than a gram of fat and
sugar pern 100g, could you still put on fat from the unused energy
(carbohydrates). In other words, other than too much sugar is bad for
you, is it that you should be looking at the energy over the fat in the
nutrition information? Could you put onb more fat, if you ate a
ice-cream less in kilojules (high in fat and sugar), but the VitaBrits
was more in energy than the ice cream(but less in fat and sugar), Could
you put on more fat?

"Cubit" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The body regulates its calorie intake.

Actually _you_ regulate your calorie intake (its called "eating"😉.

Quoted message said:

Something in the modern diet causes
that regulator to malfunction.

is there a scientific term for your "calorie regulator"? are you talking
about thermogenesis / thyroids?

Quoted message said:

The key is not how many calories a single
portion of a particular food has.

agreed.

Quoted message said:

The key is whether that food will
influence the calorie regulator, which some people call an "appestat."

what calories are you talking about?
calories in food, calories being utilized, calories being stored, calories
being "wasted" by thermogenesis?

...and fyi:

Quoted post said:

ap·pe·stat
n.

The area in the brain that is believed to regulate appetite and food
intake.

If I understand your question, you would want to consume
energy-producing foods at a variable rate in response to demand. In
other words, if you are physically active consume more fats, if not
physically active, consume less. The problem is rigid eating habits.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Obviously, any energy you don't use turns into fat.

It is really not so "obvious" to one who knows what energy is; try
highschool physics for a start.
Energy is, guess what? Energy. It does -not- contain any atoms,
molecules, nor mass of ANY kind.
Energy can NOT magically turn into mass: i.e. atoms that conveniently
arrange themselves into fat molecules.
Although Einstein discovered that E=mc^2; the only direct evidence we
have of that equivalence is when very small amounts of mass are converted
into very large amounts of energy, say in an atomic bomb.
The conversion of energy into mass; however, has not been observed,
especially not in the human being.
Calories are not "burned", either. Energy can not be "burned".
Let's put to rest some of these outrageous lies being propagated in
contemporary nutribabble...

Laurie