Alcohol calories not the same as food calories?

[Peterpetrole]

Don't think there's been a recent thread on this, but looking for some input -

I've noticed that my nominal calorie intake re maintenance level) doesn't really match my weight changes when considering alcohol intake. In other words after some heavy sessions my weight doesn't increase by the expected amount. This is over a lengthy period so not talking about varying hydration levels etc.

1500 alcohol calories in a bottle of whisky would be around 0.5 lb of extra bodyweight if it was food calories. No way I put that on from one bottle.

I know beer would be far worse as it has about the same amount in carb calories as it's alcohol content, but for spirits, and a lot of wines, they have essentially zero carbs.

I've seen a rough description that as the body sees alcohol as a poison, it is immediately prioritized for breaking down in the liver and expelled. Apart from the inefficiencies in that process, the body is expelling a lot of waste product rather than burning carbs for fuel / fat storage.

My casual observation is that alcoholics addicted to spirits don't seem to have any weight problem (some famous actors for example) compared to the supposedly vast quantities they drink.

So...... is a calorie not a calorie?

[mcflurry]

Don't all those 200 calories beers make for a bigger belly?

[Peterpetrole]

mcflurry said:

Don't all those 200 calories beers make for a bigger belly?

I understand the carbs in beer do yes. I'm talking about the alcohol component.

[TownIdiot]

My observation is that alcoholics addicted to spirits don't eat properly.

[Muzzer79]

Peterpetrole said:

My casual observation is that alcoholics addicted to spirits don't seem to have any weight problem (some famous actors for example) compared to the supposedly vast quantities they drink.

That's because alcoholics tend to drink, rather than eat.

Scoffing a hearty meal is fairly down on the priority list when you're st-faced

[redstar1]

A calorie is simply a measure of energy. The 'source' of the calories in a diet are the important thing and not all are treated equally by the bodies metabolism.

[sherman]

Probably because on a decent sesh after the 3rd pint you are pissing away enough water weight to compensate for the alcohol calorie gain.

[Peterpetrole]

Muzzer79 said:

Peterpetrole said:

My casual observation is that alcoholics addicted to spirits don't seem to have any weight problem (some famous actors for example) compared to the supposedly vast quantities they drink.

That's because alcoholics tend to drink, rather than eat.

Scoffing a hearty meal is fairly down on the priority list when you're st-faced

Richard Burton was claiming to drink 3 bottles of vodka a day, every day (5,000 calories), and he wasn't fat, or getting fatter.
Ringo Starr claimed 16 bottles of red wine a day.

[otolith]

Up to around 10% of it is excreted rather than metabolised, so you need to knock that off the calorific value for a start.

[Wills2]

I've always thought it advisable to dismiss the claims of drunkards, the fact is alcoholics don't eat properly and poison their bodies to the point of alcohol Ketoacidosis.

I'd lay of it for a while if I were you.

[redstar1]

Peterpetrole said:

Richard Burton was claiming to drink 3 bottles of vodka a day, every day (5,000 calories), and he wasn't fat, or getting fatter.
Ringo Starr claimed 16 bottles of red wine a day.

Your body can't store any of the calories contained in alcohol so if all you are doing is drinking, you use it or lose it (aside from byproducts of the liver).

[98elise]

redstar1 said:

A calorie is simply a measure of energy. The 'source' of the calories in a diet are the important thing and not all are treated equally by the bodies metabolism.

This.

Cardboard has calories but I wouldn’t recommend eating it.

[Dbag101]

As has been said here. Calorie conversion efficiency is crucial. If you ( forex ) look at the calorie content of a meal, say, from the menu at a chain type restaurant, those numbers assume the ‘worst case scenario’. You eat every last bit of it, and all the calories are converted / extracted via metabolism, before it errrr ‘escapes’ the body. When it comes to alcohol, how many people don’t finish the whole drink normally? Not many I’d wager, the calories will usually be converted / extracted pretty efficiently too, so that’s another consideration. Then there’s the elephant in the room. How many extra calories do you take on, when you get the munchies? Quite a few normally, it’s often overlooked. Fun fact, beer bellies aren’t caused by beer, they’re caused by the snacks and food you consume more of, after you’ve had a few beers.

[Peterpetrole]

98elise said:

redstar1 said:

A calorie is simply a measure of energy. The 'source' of the calories in a diet are the important thing and not all are treated equally by the bodies metabolism.

This.

Cardboard has calories but I wouldn’t recommend eating it.

My point is this goes against a lot of dietary advice frequently suggested, for example Keith Frayn, emeritus professor of human metabolism at the University of Oxford wrote:

"A Calorie is a Calorie: The Inescapable Science that Controls Our Body Weight"

Which would seem to be a misleading book title with regards alcohol, vs for example fibre which has zero calories.

[TownIdiot]

And those who are at that level of alcoholism will spend a great deal of their time puking and stting.

It's not all Elizabeth Taylor sitting on your face.

[redstar1]

Peterpetrole said:

My point is this goes against a lot of dietary advice frequently suggested, for example Keith Frayn, emeritus professor of human metabolism at the University of Oxford wrote:

"A Calorie is a Calorie: The Inescapable Science that Controls Our Body Weight"

Which would seem to be a misleading book title with regards alcohol, vs for example fibre which has zero calories.

Well a calorie is a calorie, but that's an oversimplified view. Makes a good headline though.

As I understand it the book is about simplifying our approach to diet, in that if calories in = calories out, you won't put on weight. I don't think the author, or any nutritionist would include alcohol as part of any 'balanced diet'.

[Dbag101]

TownIdiot said:

And those who are at that level of alcoholism will spend a great deal of their time puking and stting.

It's not all Elizabeth Taylor sitting on your face.

Which is exactly why true alcoholics are skinny wrecks. You won’t see an obese one.

[otolith]

There have been attempts to correct calorimeter results for usability.

Atwater collected the turds of subjects and then put those in the calorimeter to see how much energy hadn't been extracted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_system

The precise values are still disputed, though. Calculating how much of the energy in the food goes right through you and comes out the other end is a start, and would solve the cardboard problem, but it doesn't account for the different energetic costs of digesting and metabolising different foods.

About:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20160201-why-...

[Bluevanman]

Dbag101 said:

Which is exactly why true alcoholics are skinny wrecks. You won’t see an obese one.

I give you Alex hurricane Higgins,drank like a fish, rarely ate,was about 7 stone wet through

[Peterpetrole]

otolith said:

There have been attempts to correct calorimeter results for usability.

Atwater collected the turds of subjects and then put those in the calorimeter to see how much energy hadn't been extracted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_system

The precise values are still disputed, though. Calculating how much of the energy in the food goes right through you and comes out the other end is a start, and would solve the cardboard problem, but it doesn't account for the different energetic costs of digesting and metabolising different foods.

About:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20160201-why-...

Excellent, thanks, that's more the sort of scientific approach I was searching for. I knew that protein measurements have always been in some dispute according to how protein is defined and measured, but also intriguing that "calorie measurement" - and hence a large chunk of dietary science - hasn't really moved on much for the past 120 years.

Which fits with my prejudices.