calorie isn't a calorie ?
Options
Replies
-
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Original_Beauty wrote: »In the most basic terms, all calories are created equal. A calorie is simply a unit for measuring energy. But the way in which the body uses those calories is what accounts for different weight loss results. The origin of a calorie determines how the body digests and stores that energy. For example, the body uses calories from protein to help maintain and repair muscles, organs and tissues. Carbohydrates are a major energy source for the body, while fats both help protect organs and help with the absorption of important vitamins. All three nutrients are essential, but the body metabolizes them very differently.
So, are you saying that, while eating exactly the same number of calories, if I change my macro percentages, I'll lose different amounts of weight?
That is actually correct and very possible because the second law of thermodynamics is that no machine is completely efficient. Basically when the human body processes food it varies in the efficiency in which it processes the different macronutrients. The byproduct or inefficiency is the heat generated by processing food (known as thermogenesis or the thermic effect of feeding). The thermic effects of nutrients is approximately 2–3 % for lipids, 6–8 % for carbohydrates, and 25–30% for proteins. So basically when you eat a diet higher in protein you waste more energy processing the food throgh the production of heat and therefore have less to expend through other means. This is very well established and not at all ground breaking.
Here's a paper if you'd like to read more
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9
so I can be eating 500 calories over maintenance, adjust my macro percentages, and magically start to lose weight, even though I am over eating?
ok then….0 -
Original_Beauty wrote: »daybehavior wrote: »Original_Beauty wrote: »
And this is what we call "selective listening"
No this is so someone who has studied in science and chemistry of food at university.
you might want to re-visit the chapter on experiment design….0 -
0
-
The newbies are hilarious in this thread.0
-
Just like 2+2 /= 3+1 /= 4+0Original_Beauty wrote: »
There is a big difference in the picture. It is not calories. There is something else those nutritious foods have which is vitamins and minerals. Please explain again that a calorie is not a calorie. Use better exampless not foods that have less or no vitamin and minerals because that does nothing for the calorie argument.0 -
I'm going to start eating 10000cal/day of nothing but "healthy" "clean" foods, and then wonder why I've gained 20lbs by Christmas.0
-
yopeeps025 wrote: »
Just like 2+2 /= 3+1 /= 4+0Original_Beauty wrote: »
There is a big difference in the picture. It is not calories. There is something else those nutritious foods have which is vitamins and minerals. Please explain again that a calorie is not a calorie. Use better exampless not foods that have less or no vitamin and minerals because that does nothing for the calorie argument.
That's the argument, they can't actually argue a unit of energy =/= a unit of energy. They have to fall back on which is more nutritious/ has more micro nutrients.
Even the pic says they are equal cals!0 -
ThePhoenixIsRising wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
Just like 2+2 /= 3+1 /= 4+0Original_Beauty wrote: »
There is a big difference in the picture. It is not calories. There is something else those nutritious foods have which is vitamins and minerals. Please explain again that a calorie is not a calorie. Use better exampless not foods that have less or no vitamin and minerals because that does nothing for the calorie argument.
That's the argument, they can't actually argue a unit of energy =/= a unit of energy. They have to fall back on which is more nutritious/ has more micro nutrients.
Even the pic says they are equal cals!
I guess there is not argument.
0 -
peachyfuzzle wrote: »I'm going to start eating 10000cal/day of nothing but "healthy" "clean" foods, and then wonder why I've gained 20lbs by Christmas.
...0 -
Calories =/ nutrients. Calories= calories.
Is one pound of rock heavier than one pound of cotton? Will you say rock is heavier because it looks heavier??0 -
0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Original_Beauty wrote: »In the most basic terms, all calories are created equal. A calorie is simply a unit for measuring energy. But the way in which the body uses those calories is what accounts for different weight loss results. The origin of a calorie determines how the body digests and stores that energy. For example, the body uses calories from protein to help maintain and repair muscles, organs and tissues. Carbohydrates are a major energy source for the body, while fats both help protect organs and help with the absorption of important vitamins. All three nutrients are essential, but the body metabolizes them very differently.
So, are you saying that, while eating exactly the same number of calories, if I change my macro percentages, I'll lose different amounts of weight?
That is actually correct and very possible because the second law of thermodynamics is that no machine is completely efficient. Basically when the human body processes food it varies in the efficiency in which it processes the different macronutrients. The byproduct or inefficiency is the heat generated by processing food (known as thermogenesis or the thermic effect of feeding). The thermic effects of nutrients is approximately 2–3 % for lipids, 6–8 % for carbohydrates, and 25–30% for proteins. So basically when you eat a diet higher in protein you waste more energy processing the food throgh the production of heat and therefore have less to expend through other means. This is very well established and not at all ground breaking.
Here's a paper if you'd like to read more
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9
so I can be eating 500 calories over maintenance, adjust my macro percentages, and magically start to lose weight, even though I am over eating?
ok then….
Can you please point to the part where I said that. Taking into account the TEF at THE SAME calorie count but different macros you could lose (or gain) different amounts of weight. A net calorie deficit is still required to lose of course (that's the first law) but to completely discount the second law in a theoretical discussion like the one that we are having is to ignore a principle that is just as important as the first law and to berate other people for taking it into acount is kinda rude. The actual practical effect that this would have would likely be minimal other than in the extremes but still can't be completely ignored.0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Original_Beauty wrote: »In the most basic terms, all calories are created equal. A calorie is simply a unit for measuring energy. But the way in which the body uses those calories is what accounts for different weight loss results. The origin of a calorie determines how the body digests and stores that energy. For example, the body uses calories from protein to help maintain and repair muscles, organs and tissues. Carbohydrates are a major energy source for the body, while fats both help protect organs and help with the absorption of important vitamins. All three nutrients are essential, but the body metabolizes them very differently.
So, are you saying that, while eating exactly the same number of calories, if I change my macro percentages, I'll lose different amounts of weight?
That is actually correct and very possible because the second law of thermodynamics is that no machine is completely efficient. Basically when the human body processes food it varies in the efficiency in which it processes the different macronutrients. The byproduct or inefficiency is the heat generated by processing food (known as thermogenesis or the thermic effect of feeding). The thermic effects of nutrients is approximately 2–3 % for lipids, 6–8 % for carbohydrates, and 25–30% for proteins. So basically when you eat a diet higher in protein you waste more energy processing the food throgh the production of heat and therefore have less to expend through other means. This is very well established and not at all ground breaking.
Here's a paper if you'd like to read more
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9
so I can be eating 500 calories over maintenance, adjust my macro percentages, and magically start to lose weight, even though I am over eating?
ok then….
Can you please point to the part where I said that. Taking into account the TEF at THE SAME calorie count but different macros you could lose (or gain) different amounts of weight. A net calorie deficit is still required to lose of course (that's the first law) but to completely discount the second law in a theoretical discussion like the one that we are having is to ignore a principle that is just as important as the first law and to berate other people for taking it into acount is kinda rude. The actual practical effect that this would have would likely be minimal other than in the extremes but still can't be completely ignored.
someone posed a question to you and asked if they are eating same level of calories and adjust macro percentages will they lose weight; to which you replied "this is actually correct and very possible"…so I posed the question..can I eat 500 calories over maintenance, adjust macro percentages and lose weight…? Are you saying that you can't eat the same level of calories, adjust percentages, and lose..????0 -
No your response was quite clearly a sarcastic statement disguised as a question.
You can create a slightly larger deficit at THE SAME calorie level by eating a greater % of protein because the body is less efficient at processing protein and as a result more energy is lost through the production of heat (relative to the processing of fat and carbs (this is the second law). To lose weight you still need to be in an overall calorie deficit (the first law).0 -
No your response was quite clearly a sarcastic statement disguised as a question.
You can create a slightly larger deficit at THE SAME calorie level by eating a greater % of protein because the body is less efficient at processing protein and as a result more energy is lost through the production of heat (relative to the processing of fat and carbs (this is the second law). To lose weight you still need to be in an overall calorie deficit (the first law).
No, it was actually a really question …
You can't have it both ways. You can't say "yes, you can adjust macro percentages, and lose weight" and then come back and say "well of course you need a calorie deficit to lose weight"
and as someone else pointed out the effect of TEF is so marginal that it would not really impact weight loss...0 -
No your response was quite clearly a sarcastic statement disguised as a question.
You can create a slightly larger deficit at THE SAME calorie level by eating a greater % of protein because the body is less efficient at processing protein and as a result more energy is lost through the production of heat (relative to the processing of fat and carbs (this is the second law). To lose weight you still need to be in an overall calorie deficit (the first law).
No, it was actually a really question …
You can't have it both ways. You can't say "yes, you can adjust macro percentages, and lose weight" and then come back and say "well of course you need a calorie deficit to lose weight"
and as someone else pointed out the effect of TEF is so marginal that it would not really impact weight loss...
Well I suggest you work on your tone because it coveyed clear sacrasm IMHO.
Yes, I can and am saying that. I've already explained the science several times so you're clearly aren't understanding my point. I'm not going to attempt to explain further than what I already have. Read the paper I originally linked to, it explains it well.0 -
No your response was quite clearly a sarcastic statement disguised as a question.
You can create a slightly larger deficit at THE SAME calorie level by eating a greater % of protein because the body is less efficient at processing protein and as a result more energy is lost through the production of heat (relative to the processing of fat and carbs (this is the second law). To lose weight you still need to be in an overall calorie deficit (the first law).
No, it was actually a really question …
You can't have it both ways. You can't say "yes, you can adjust macro percentages, and lose weight" and then come back and say "well of course you need a calorie deficit to lose weight"
and as someone else pointed out the effect of TEF is so marginal that it would not really impact weight loss...
Well I suggest you work on your tone because it coveyed clear sacrasm IMHO.
Yes, I can and am saying that. I've already explained the science several times so you're clearly aren't understanding my point. I'm not going to attempt to explain further than what I already have. Read the paper I originally linked to, it explains it well.
it must be nice to be able to have things both ways….0 -
so we conclude that?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions