I think this would be too nuanced to think about while you're shopping at a grocery store, but every absorbed calorie is a calorie. Sugar is a very direct and easy source of energy that does not take much additional energy to be made into a usable form by the body. There's no additional food slowing or stopping the absorption of sugars. On the other hand, if you look at some complex fats and proteins, the body takes some energy to break it down or convert it into something usable. In addition, if you look at the complex make up actual foods like fruit, your body isn't able to exact every single calorie a nutrition label states. Ingesting 100 calories of sugar is going to give you pretty close to a net of 100 calories. If you ingest a fruit, your body has to break down the plant cells by chewing, the fibers have to be broken down, the stomach has to digest and crush and humans still aren't able to extract all of the nutrition in food. As you age, your ability to absorb or breakdown nutrients might even change. You probably won't be getting much energy from lactose if you're intolerant. But if you just read a nutrition label, it will say it's 100 calories of energy. Every absorbed calorie is a calorie and at the end of the day it is calories in vs calories out if you can control the psychological urges to eat or not eat. Humans aren't that simple, but CICO does work. Dietary education needs to have a foundation of CICO.

All calories aren't equal because of what happens next.

After consuming sugar, your insulin cycle leaves you wanting to consume more 20 minutes later.

After eating the calorific equivalent in an apple, your metabolic process is a smooth glide so you aren't triggered to consume more in the same way as sugar.

The mental health consequences are profound, because executive control of attention is a core component of self. Sugar interrupts concentration both on the high and the withdrawal.

In clinical terms what you're describing is the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity. This remains controversial in the field and hasn't been completely proven, but there is some experimental evidence to support it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-0658-8

It is not possible to gain weight by eating your total daily calorie expenditure in pure sugar.

Yes, not all calories are metabolized the same, and sugar may lead to over eating, but at the end of the day, it’s a simple equation. You can’t gain weight without taking in more than you’re putting out.

You aren't wrong in a technical sense, but this is far too reductionist. The type of calories and the way you consume them can't change the thermodynamics, but they can and do change your hunger, satiation and other bodily sensations that feed back into the thermodynamics by affecting your calories in and calories out. The simplest example is not needing a mid-morning snack because your choice of calories led to you being satiated for longer.

> What would be more beneficial than calorie counting would be dietary education.

Not sure I agree. I think only some basic education is really required. Once you start getting into the weeds about how not all calories are equal, it's easy to get overwhelmed and give up.

Generally, refined sugar is to be avoided. Not too many other carbs. That's about all the education the average person needs to be an effective calorie counter.

With calorie counting, you typically stay aware of your caloric intake before each meal, which is the biggest battle - not mindlessly eating. Better choices tend to naturally follow.

The study is looking at whether it has an impact on mental health outcomes or the development of eating disorders. Not if calorie counting has an effect on weight loss.

Regarding sugar, simple refined sugars consumed on their own causes large fluctuations in energy levels, but not all sugars. Complex carbohydrates/sugars consumed with fibre are much more preferred overall, unless you're doing heavy exercise where your body needs more glycogen.

Triggering the bodies' insulin response is normal and isn't necessarily a bad thing, afterall it is always being triggered. Unless you continually eat highly processed simple sugars that isn't accompanied by movement (e.g. chocolate bars and lollies), you wont have a problem. A good example is moving from eating white breads to multigrain or rye breads which reduce the glycemic index of food, in combination with appropriate toppings.

I 100% agree that dietary education is extremely important, having been lucky enough to study nutrition in high school it has helped me greatly in life.

> What would be more beneficial than calorie counting would be dietary education.

Both are needed in different ways. Stuffing yourself with avocado and nuts might be "healthy" but is also gonna be a calorie bomb that will lead to weight gains.

Calorie counting is simple (albeit somewhat tedious) and makes sense and naturally leads people to healthy food.

Careful, you're summoning the CICO cult

Why is understanding that it’s impossible to gain wright without eating above your TDEE a cult?

It’s basic thermodynamics.

I think because it's a poor message to provide people who struggle with their weight and nutrition.

In fact, CICO completely neglects the nutrition aspect of what you eat.

So people tend to be somewhat cavalier and claim it's easy to lose weight, it's just CICO.

But that really isn't the whole story. As any actual qualified scientist in the field of nutrition will tell you.

Of course you absolutely would lose weight eating under your daily calorie requirements of anything at all.

However if you just ate sugar you'd probably began to lose even more weight in all the wrong ways as your body began to shut down and fail due to malnutrition!

FWIW: I've been a participant on food studies with actual scientists at my local Uni :-)

So the above is just what they share with me :-)

YMMV :-)

CICO != "Neglect Nutrition"

CICO = "eat 80% TDEE in hamburgers and birthday cakes and you'll be fine ;)"