This is technically true, but useless. A calorie, as you surely know, is a measure of increasing the temperature of water. Imagine cooking one pot on high, increasing the temperature as fast as possible, and another gradually over the course of hours, applying the same total increase in heat energy to both. Do you really think the contents would cook identically in both pots?
As leoedin eloquently described, glycemic index was what I meant; do the calories hit you gradually, or all at once? But biology is freakin' complex, so at some level these concepts are all just leaky abstractions.
Okay, from the GI point of view I see what you're saying. I thought you were referring to the satiating effect of fats vs other macronutrients from the phasing of you're initial response; please forgive my knee jerk reaction.
It depends on your dietary goals and expected physical activity, bur personally, I'd reach for for some quinoa or make a lentil-based dish as a pre-run meal instead of nuts.
This is technically true, but useless. A calorie, as you surely know, is a measure of increasing the temperature of water. Imagine cooking one pot on high, increasing the temperature as fast as possible, and another gradually over the course of hours, applying the same total increase in heat energy to both. Do you really think the contents would cook identically in both pots?
As leoedin eloquently described, glycemic index was what I meant; do the calories hit you gradually, or all at once? But biology is freakin' complex, so at some level these concepts are all just leaky abstractions.