I have a PhD in Naturopathic Medicine and was underwritten by an MD.
Calories are different in the way that they are processed. What blood levels they effect and how the body stores them. It’s not all thermodynamics. When one eats and what they eat in certain times are also a factor. A person can chow on 1500 calories in one sitting, not eating the rest of the day and they will not lose weight. I saw it in my practice. Once they split it up and graze, they will. Same calories.
Perhaps a little study of nutrition is in order. Start with a Pediatric diabetic diet. Then we’ll talk about a calorie just being a calorie.
A calorie is not a calorie - but weight control can come down to “Eat less. More more. Repeat as needed.”
There WILL come a point when the body burns off the fat...but many of us may choose not to reach that point. Me? I can go around being fairly active and not eating a lot, and I’ll still have about 25 lbs on my waist. I can get rid of it, but the dieting and exercise required gives me daily headaches. I prefer to be a bit fat and live without the pain.
I don't have any idea what Naturopathic Medicine is, but if you have a PhD in any field related to science then you should have had some physics and biochemistry in your curriculum. Anyone completing these courses shouldn't have your misunderstandings.
Calories are different in the way that they are processed.
What does that mean? It makes no sense.
A calorie is a measure of the amount of energy. It is always the same no matter what.
Are you trying to say the amount of energy you get out of a calorie can be different?
We know that the breakdown of fat requires a different pathway than the breakdown of carbohydrates. We know the breakdown of protein utilizes a different pathway than the breakdown of fat and carbs. The efficiencies are not the same for all of these processes. This is understood but it doesn't change the fact that a calorie is a calorie.
Different amounts of ATP's will be formed for each step - on a carbon basis. Burning a calorie of fat will not form the same amount of ATP as burning a calorie of carbohydrate. As I said, different efficiencies.
A person can chow on 1500 calories in one sitting, not eating the rest of the day and they will not lose weight. I saw it in my practice. Once they split it up and graze, they will. Same calories.
This has nothing to do with whether or not a calorie is a calorie. This is an anecdote and you have no way of knowing how small meals may have affected these individuals. Maybe the 1500 calories consumed by the person in one sitting weren't absorbed as efficiently as those consumed in small meals. You'd have to measure the amount of calories defecated to know for sure. I wouldn't want to do that either. The utilization of calories may be more efficient. It may not be. You're drawing conclusions based on your observations but you don't know enough details to draw any conclusions -- any conclusions that matter, that is. But here they are.
Before I could enroll in graduate level biochemistry, I had to first take (and do well) courses in chemistry, nutrition, physiology, physics and so on. We were taught that a calorie is a measure of the amount of energy and that it is always the same no matter what. That's the way it's defined. We were also taught that you cannot get something from nothing. That being true, if you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight. It is really very simple. I don't understand why people work so hard to complicate it.