Originally Posted by
General Geoff
You still haven't provided any citations to suggest that a calorie (actually kilocalorie, which is a scentific unit of energy measurement equivalent to 4184 Joules) of chocolate will in any way take more effort to burn than a calorie of, say, broccoli. While the energy densities of these foods are vastly different, if you're measuring by calorie and not volume, then you've already corrected for that factor.
I posted 3 links earlier in the thread to studies that showed calculated calorie counts aren't the whole story when it comes to useable calories for food. Here's one of them(a 32% discrepancy between calculated calories and useable calories for almonds): http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296
Nuts seem to be the most affected by the inadequacy of calculated calories to capture the real digestive calorie content of foods, but I would not be surprised if it's significant enough with other foods to make a difference for people who are pure calorie counter dieters.
Even the form of a food can affect available calories. Whole peanuts provide fewer available calories than peanuts that have been turned into peanut butter.