Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Are all calories the same??

1111213141517»

Replies

  • auddiiauddii Posts: 15,410Member Member Posts: 15,410Member Member
    softballap wrote: »
    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

    http://www.soheefit.com/everyday-snickers/

    Granted, she's bikini, but still...
  • ForecasterJasonForecasterJason Posts: 2,582Member Member Posts: 2,582Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    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?

      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.
      Differences in amount of LBM, perhaps?

    1. psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,352Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,352Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
      psuLemon wrote: »
      psuLemon wrote: »
      yarwell wrote: »
      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?

        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.
        Differences in amount of LBM, perhaps?

        Probably not. Considering each extra lb of muscle burns only adds and addition 4-6 calories burned, it's unlikely. What I have concluded is this: the increase in exercise intensity and increase in NEAT activities have increased as I have lost weight, which increase TDEE.
      1. heybalesheybales Posts: 17,126Member Member Posts: 17,126Member Member
        Remember muscle by itself as merely a part of LBM may indeed have a resting low calorie burn.

        But water management in all the cells and interstitial space as another major part of LBM is actually a pretty decent calorie burner. Can't find the reference right now, but it's higher than resting muscle burn.

        And the more you mess with that balance (burning off muscle carbs, blood volume changing, ect), the more that goes up.

        Still not huge amount, but decent for lost mass being moved around. Of course as you noted, if you feel lighter and enjoy moving more - you'll balance if not improve out that possible loss anyway.
      Sign In or Register to comment.