I was watching a cooking show the other day and the host kept talking about how this dish was low in calories and had fewer calories than that food and blah blah blah about calories. 

Obviously she was trying to stress that the meals she was preparing were apparently better for you because of the amount of calories in them.

I was sitting there becoming more and more frustrated that these foods were being spun as good for your figure, when they were probably some of the worst things you could put in your mouth if you wanted to lose body fat.

Come on folks, I don’t care that angel food cake has only 100 calories per serving; sugar and processed flour aren’t part of a healthy diet.

I was also sitting there stumped on why everyone is still so obsessed with calories. 

What was that? You also believe that calories are worth keeping track of?  I admit that many of you are reading this article think I must be crazy for scoffing at the country’s calorie obsession, but calories don’t count! 

That’s right, this is a big myth that just won’t die.

There’s this idea that as long as the energy going out is greater than the energy coming in there should be a net loss; if there is a net loss then the assumption is that you should be losing fat.

This myth usually arises when someone is trying to oversimplify a fat loss diet. The equation is not as simple as: energy in < energy out = fat loss.

This is simply not true. And, when you look at it with an understanding of how the body works, it makes absolute sense. 

Here's a grossly exaggerated example, but I think it gets the point across. Two identical twins, Brother A and Brother B, want to lose fat.

Both eat 1900 calories a day.

Brother A gets his 1900 calories from a protein rich diet filled with quality, high fiber carbohydrates and healthy fats: chicken breasts, veggies, fish oil supplements, oatmeal, etc.

Brother B gets his 1900 calories from table sugar: spoonful after spoonful of table sugar.

Now, although both are consuming the same amount of calories and both have the same genetic backgrounds and workout plans, which one is going lose the most fat, preserve or build the most muscle, perform better, and well, look better at the end of the diet?

Brother A, of course.

While it's true that calories must be considered in the big picture, they aren't the sole determinants of your body composition and performance capabilities.

Bottom line, all calories are not created equal and the body responds differently accordingly.

Look folks, we are biological units not machines.  Although many of you out there may think your computer or car are complicated devices our bodies are infinitely more complex than those things. 

This means that putting food into our mouth is nothing like putting gasoline into a car. 

You can only put one type of fuel into your car, you can’t fill up with diesel, you can’t stuff the tank with coal, you can’t top off with premium walnut timber—one fuel and only one fuel will work: gasoline. If you put anything else in your tank, you’re going to have a problem.

We humans have this wonderful ability to extract energy from a vast variety of food.  We can put several types of fuel (macronutrients) into our bodies, fat, proteins, and carbohydrates, and each macronutrient responds in a totally different way.

Not only that, but each macronutrient can create a different response or be used in a different way by the body (one gram of fiber and one gram of sugar are still considered one gram of carbohydrate and have about 4 calories each)

To makes things even more complicated, when our body spends energy through basic function or activity, there are several energy storage sites from which to choose—and no, it doesn’t always come from fat stores.

And here is the first problem with counting calories.  If the body responds to each macronutrient differently, even though the macronutrient may have the same amount of energy (calories), counting calories without considering where the calories are coming from is missing a big part of the equation.

The point I am trying to make is that the quantity of calories you consume is overshadowed by the internal response that happens when you ingest those calories. 

Basically, what your body does with those calories is far more important than how many calories you consume.

For example, if you ate 1000 calories and your body used them to build muscle or recover from a workout, wouldn’t that be better than eating a mere 300 calories that your body simply stored as fat?

The 300-calorie meal ended up working against your fitness goals while the 1000-calorie meal actually helped you. 

If you think about your fitness goals, what you’re really concerned about is what’s happening with those calories. 

So what now?

Unfortunately, just because you don’t have to worry about calories anymore doesn’t mean you have an open invitation to put whatever you want into your mouth. 

Like I mentioned earlier, calories do factor into the equation but they are overshadowed by other components of a good eating plan. 

A calorie is not just a calorie—the macronutrient content of each meal affects the body's response to the feeding. This means you could change your body composition by eating the same amount of calories each day, but making different food choices (meal timing also plays an important role).

There are many reasons a calorie is not simply a calorie, including the TEF or Thermic Effect of Food (calories expended just to digest, absorb and process the food you eat), the glycemic and insulin indexes and food timing issues. Food selection makes a huge difference.

Again, while it's true that calories must be considered in the big picture, they aren't the sole determinants of your body composition and performance capabilities. In short, all calories are not created equal!

Look for next month’s article in which I will discuss quality macronutrients and the demonization of fat.