I know in weight loss the main thing is calories taken in vs. calories burned, but on food labels when they say "calories from fat", how is that information useful? Are calories better if they aren't "from fat" or are calories all just calories to be calculated the same? For example, say I have two similar food items, both 100 calories, but on one of them 45 of the calories are from fat while the other has 24 calories from fat, is one better than the other, or are they no different?
Sport "Calories" vs "Calories from fat" on labels?
- Thread starter Red_Panda
- Start date
Sport Fitness
Well, they are different, but whether one is "better" than the other purely on that basis depends on what you are doing. Someone carbo-loading for an endurance event likely has different nutritional needs compared to someone doing a low carbohydrate diet for whatever reason.
While some people do have reason to pay attention to macronutrient (carbohydrate, fat, protein) ratios, for most people interested in general health and fitness, the quality of each macronutrient category matters more once the amounts of macronutrients are within broad acceptable ranges. For example, carbohydrates from vegetables, whole fruits, beans, and whole grains are generally more desirable than those from sugar, refined grain, and deep fried foods.
While some people do have reason to pay attention to macronutrient (carbohydrate, fat, protein) ratios, for most people interested in general health and fitness, the quality of each macronutrient category matters more once the amounts of macronutrients are within broad acceptable ranges. For example, carbohydrates from vegetables, whole fruits, beans, and whole grains are generally more desirable than those from sugar, refined grain, and deep fried foods.
1 Gram of Fat = 9 Calories
1 Gram of Carbohydrates = 4 Calories
1 Gram of Protein = 4 Calories
A lot of people don't know this so my assumption is that nutrition labels show how many calories are from "x" amount of grams of fat. Sometimes these labels aren't entirely accurate according to the information above, and honestly I don't really know which to go by. Most often it shows that there are less calories from fat than there really is if you were to multiply the grams of fat by 9.
1 Gram of Carbohydrates = 4 Calories
1 Gram of Protein = 4 Calories
A lot of people don't know this so my assumption is that nutrition labels show how many calories are from "x" amount of grams of fat. Sometimes these labels aren't entirely accurate according to the information above, and honestly I don't really know which to go by. Most often it shows that there are less calories from fat than there really is if you were to multiply the grams of fat by 9.
Well as I said, by "better" I meant as in better if one's goal was to lose weight. I know not all fats are bad though so I wasn't sure how helpful this measurement really is on a label. I often look at the poly vs. mono saturated fat (poly being better because we can break it down more, right?) but I just always wondered if the "calories from fat" thing was helpful at all. I've mostly kind of ignored it.
As long as you're keeping your calories in chec, there's not really a 'better' for weight loss in terms of if one product has 20 grams of fat and another has 8 (or insert any numbers there).
You just have to keep in mind that if you're only aiming to get in 80 grams of fat a day and you eat 50 at one sitting, then you have to be more mindful with the rest of your meals.