Considering the fact that SAD stands for Standard American Diet, and recent research shows that only 3 percent of Americans have healthy lifestyles, I think that most people have poor diets, especially most people who are overweight. You don't see how "a calorie is a calorie" is leading some people to eat a poor diet when people are posting questions about replacing their dinner with beer, because it's the same amount of calories, and people are saying that's OK?
Based on that article from a news magazine? Let me google and find another article to fit my agenda, I'm sure it is not too dificult. LOL
Not to mention, I seem to be in that 3%, and I became so following calorie counting / macro tracking, so as long as we're using bad reasoning, why not compound it with appeal to authority from me. At least you'll get the right answer, if for the wrong reason.
No. Calories are not the same. If they were, bodybuilding diets would not exist. There is a reason why we eat high amounts of protein and limited carbs and no sugars. You can google that though... The effects of sugar and insulin
No. Calories are not the same. If they were, bodybuilding diets would not exist. There is a reason why we eat high amounts of protein and limited carbs and no sugars. You can google that though... The effects of sugar and insulin
No. Calories are not the same. If they were, bodybuilding diets would not exist. There is a reason why we eat high amounts of protein and limited carbs and no sugars. You can google that though... The effects of sugar and insulin
No. Calories are not the same. If they were, bodybuilding diets would not exist. There is a reason why we eat high amounts of protein and limited carbs and no sugars. You can google that though... The effects of sugar and insulin
Uhh... bodybuilding diets as you call them usually have a good amount of carbs because if you google the effects of insulin you'll see that it also aids in protein synthesis and hinders muscle breakdown.
No. Calories are not the same. If they were, bodybuilding diets would not exist. There is a reason why we eat high amounts of protein and limited carbs and no sugars. You can google that though... The effects of sugar and insulin
No. Calories are not the same. If they were, bodybuilding diets would not exist. There is a reason why we eat high amounts of protein and limited carbs and no sugars. You can google that though... The effects of sugar and insulin
Uhh... bodybuilding diets as you call them usually have a good amount of carbs because if you google the effects of insulin you'll see that it also aids in protein synthesis and hinders muscle breakdown.
The only time body builders generally cut carbs is during contest prep so they can deplete glycogen to have their muscles appear bigger.
No. Calories are not the same. If they were, bodybuilding diets would not exist. There is a reason why we eat high amounts of protein and limited carbs and no sugars. You can google that though... The effects of sugar and insulin
Uhh... bodybuilding diets as you call them usually have a good amount of carbs because if you google the effects of insulin you'll see that it also aids in protein synthesis and hinders muscle breakdown.
The only time body builders generally cut carbs is during contest prep so they can deplete glycogen to have their muscles appear bigger.
Well, there are more than a few low carb BB'ers.
But anyone saying "we eat no sugars" ... well, doesn't know much about food composition.
No. Calories are not the same. If they were, bodybuilding diets would not exist. There is a reason why we eat high amounts of protein and limited carbs and no sugars. You can google that though... The effects of sugar and insulin
No. Calories are not the same. If they were, bodybuilding diets would not exist. There is a reason why we eat high amounts of protein and limited carbs and no sugars. You can google that though... The effects of sugar and insulin
You don't understand bulking....
And all calories are the same from an energy standpoint; however they do not all have the same nutritional content...
No. Calories are not the same. If they were, bodybuilding diets would not exist. There is a reason why we eat high amounts of protein and limited carbs and no sugars. You can google that though... The effects of sugar and insulin
Exactly
You also still do not understand the difference between a calorie and a macronutrient.
What was the OP again ? oh yes, "I wanted to start a thread that looks at the metabolic effects of calories."
But wait! There's more!
... In particular, to discuss if all calories are equal from an energy standpoint and/or from a weight loss standpoint. Before that, there are a few parameters I must be addressed:
[*] Yes, I understand a calories is a calorie in terms of a unit of measure (just like a lb is a lb) and a calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius
[*] Diet adherence isn't part of the discussion (which I fully recognize as the most important variable for weight loss and sustainability)
[*] And yes, I am majoring in the minors... I fully recognize there are many other items on the pyramid that need to be addressed prior to these minute tweets in diet, to maximize fat loss.
What was the OP again ? oh yes, "I wanted to start a thread that looks at the metabolic effects of calories."
But wait! There's more!
... In particular, to discuss if all calories are equal from an energy standpoint and/or from a weight loss standpoint. Before that, there are a few parameters I must be addressed:
[*] Yes, I understand a calories is a calorie in terms of a unit of measure (just like a lb is a lb) and a calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius
[*] Diet adherence isn't part of the discussion (which I fully recognize as the most important variable for weight loss and sustainability)
[*] And yes, I am majoring in the minors... I fully recognize there are many other items on the pyramid that need to be addressed prior to these minute tweets in diet, to maximize fat loss.
So your conclusion so far?
Do we have a "metabolic advantage" model to validate/invalidate the Hall model?
What was the OP again ? oh yes, "I wanted to start a thread that looks at the metabolic effects of calories."
But wait! There's more!
... In particular, to discuss if all calories are equal from an energy standpoint and/or from a weight loss standpoint. Before that, there are a few parameters I must be addressed:
[*] Yes, I understand a calories is a calorie in terms of a unit of measure (just like a lb is a lb) and a calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius
[*] Diet adherence isn't part of the discussion (which I fully recognize as the most important variable for weight loss and sustainability)
[*] And yes, I am majoring in the minors... I fully recognize there are many other items on the pyramid that need to be addressed prior to these minute tweets in diet, to maximize fat loss.
So your conclusion so far?
Do we have a "metabolic advantage" model to validate/invalidate the Hall model?
Honestly, not sure. Even if there was, it's fairly minute and as you mentioned earlier, our body has regulating mechanisms, which if the study was done for a longer period of time, would demonstrate that. I do recognize though, that specific types of calories do have benefits from a TEF standpoint, albeit small in the grand scheme, but if combined with other small efforts (increases to NEAT), could lead to an increase a large enough increase to ones TDEE which can make weight loss a bit easier. I know many would suggest a natural reduction in BMR/NEAT/TDEE as weight loss occurs, but I have yet to see something similar in my case. I have always maintained around 3000 calories, regardless if I was 220 or 175.
If we focus on the difference in TEF for different macros, can you see any reason to prioritize that vs. the other reasons that go into choosing a particular macro goal? As I think about it, it makes no difference. My reason for keeping protein at around 100 g is for reasons besides TEF (higher TEF is a nice side effect, but not significant at this level), and the fact that there's a higher TEF doesn't seem to me a good reason to increase protein beyond where it is. I suppose that if there's a higher TEF for foods with more fiber/less processed vs. more processed carbs, that's a small reason to opt for those on average, but I think there are better reasons (nutrition, fiber is important), and I wouldn't avoid fat or low fiber carbs I enjoy (and include in my diet for satisfaction reasons) merely because they have a low TEF.
I know that's not directly related to the OP's question -- personally I also don't know but think the effect if any is SO minimal from what we can see that it will always be outweighed by other considerations.
This goes back to what I asked upthread -- is consuming the most stated calories or even real calories that you possibly can a benefit in any way such that someone should worry about that in constructing a diet? For example, say you can eat more calories on low fat than moderately high fat. That's interesting, but does it matter in the practical application?
What was the OP again ? oh yes, "I wanted to start a thread that looks at the metabolic effects of calories."
But wait! There's more!
... In particular, to discuss if all calories are equal from an energy standpoint and/or from a weight loss standpoint. Before that, there are a few parameters I must be addressed:
[*] Yes, I understand a calories is a calorie in terms of a unit of measure (just like a lb is a lb) and a calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius
[*] Diet adherence isn't part of the discussion (which I fully recognize as the most important variable for weight loss and sustainability)
[*] And yes, I am majoring in the minors... I fully recognize there are many other items on the pyramid that need to be addressed prior to these minute tweets in diet, to maximize fat loss.
So your conclusion so far?
Do we have a "metabolic advantage" model to validate/invalidate the Hall model?
You're asking if the Hall model should take a walk?
Replies
Not to mention, I seem to be in that 3%, and I became so following calorie counting / macro tracking, so as long as we're using bad reasoning, why not compound it with appeal to authority from me. At least you'll get the right answer, if for the wrong reason.
Those are macronutrient, not calories.
^this
Uhh... bodybuilding diets as you call them usually have a good amount of carbs because if you google the effects of insulin you'll see that it also aids in protein synthesis and hinders muscle breakdown.
The only time body builders generally cut carbs is during contest prep so they can deplete glycogen to have their muscles appear bigger.
Well, there are more than a few low carb BB'ers.
But anyone saying "we eat no sugars" ... well, doesn't know much about food composition.
Exactly
Or yep:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nxyxcTZccsE&lc=z12uh5ybfxzzidui004cejlbft2yxbozr0o
You don't understand bulking....
And all calories are the same from an energy standpoint; however they do not all have the same nutritional content...
You also still do not understand the difference between a calorie and a macronutrient.
But wait! There's more!
... In particular, to discuss if all calories are equal from an energy standpoint and/or from a weight loss standpoint. Before that, there are a few parameters I must be addressed:
[*] Yes, I understand a calories is a calorie in terms of a unit of measure (just like a lb is a lb) and a calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius[*] Diet adherence isn't part of the discussion (which I fully recognize as the most important variable for weight loss and sustainability)
[*] And yes, I am majoring in the minors... I fully recognize there are many other items on the pyramid that need to be addressed prior to these minute tweets in diet, to maximize fat loss.
So your conclusion so far?
Do we have a "metabolic advantage" model to validate/invalidate the Hall model?
Honestly, not sure. Even if there was, it's fairly minute and as you mentioned earlier, our body has regulating mechanisms, which if the study was done for a longer period of time, would demonstrate that. I do recognize though, that specific types of calories do have benefits from a TEF standpoint, albeit small in the grand scheme, but if combined with other small efforts (increases to NEAT), could lead to an increase a large enough increase to ones TDEE which can make weight loss a bit easier. I know many would suggest a natural reduction in BMR/NEAT/TDEE as weight loss occurs, but I have yet to see something similar in my case. I have always maintained around 3000 calories, regardless if I was 220 or 175.
I know that's not directly related to the OP's question -- personally I also don't know but think the effect if any is SO minimal from what we can see that it will always be outweighed by other considerations.
This goes back to what I asked upthread -- is consuming the most stated calories or even real calories that you possibly can a benefit in any way such that someone should worry about that in constructing a diet? For example, say you can eat more calories on low fat than moderately high fat. That's interesting, but does it matter in the practical application?
You're asking if the Hall model should take a walk?