Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Are all calories the same??

2456717

Replies

  • CupcakesMom2CupcakesMom2 Posts: 154Member Member Posts: 154Member Member
    I love this thread. I have always felt that while calories in/ calories out is correct, that its not the entire picture.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    UG77 wrote: »
    If all calories were the same than most Americans wouldn't be overfed and malnourished at the same time.

    Most malnourishment is micronutrient based - Kwashiorkor is about the only macronutrient malnourishment that I'd think of as common without being about a malabsorption - and micronutrients don't contain calories or come from calories.
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    UG77 wrote: »
    If all calories were the same than most Americans wouldn't be overfed and malnourished at the same time.

    A calorie=a calorie does not mean that foods are identical in their nutritional content.
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,093Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,093Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    I love this thread. I have always felt that while calories in/ calories out is correct, that its not the entire picture.

    Well it may not be the whole picture but the premise of cico still exist as a function of energy balance (bmr + neat + tef +tea = tdee). The bigger question is, what effect does modifing your macronutrients have on that equation. Essentially, which component did very low fat have on that equation or is there an additional component not accounted for.
  • _John__John_ Posts: 8,601Member Member Posts: 8,601Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    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.

    To me, this is the key issue.

    Truth be told (and I will deny ever having said this on other MFP forums), I can buy into the fact that there may be very slight differences. Tho honestly, I chalk it more up to inaccuracies and rounding errors in measurement than true differences in the properties of the calories themselves. (ie - does every 1.0 gram of carbs contain EXACTLY 4.0 calories of energy? Does this 120g 90% lean hamburger patty contain EXACTLY 22g of protein?)

    The reason I will deny ever having acknowledged this in most MFP threads, is because the variance caused by the above - whether it's due to inaccuracies/rounding errors, or whether there truly is a difference in how our bodies process the calories in certain types of food - is so relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, that it's simply not helpful for the 29.5 BMI person looking to lose 40 lbs to get wrapped up in it.

    what he said.
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    The link in the first post didn't work for me, so here's another link to the study: http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(15)00350-2.pdf

    And this is a really good discussion of it: https://examine.com/blog/really-low-fat-vs-somewhat-lower-carb/
    edited February 2016
  • neohdiverneohdiver Posts: 738Member Member Posts: 738Member Member
    I'd be interested to see this reproduced on a larger sample set, but interesting none the less.

    And over a longer period of time. The duration of the reduced fat and reduced carb diets was 6 days.
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,093Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,093Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    The link in the first post didn't work for me, so here's another link to the study: http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(15)00350-2.pdf

    And this is a really good discussion of it: https://examine.com/blog/really-low-fat-vs-somewhat-lower-carb/

    Great article. I really love examine.com.
  • robertw486robertw486 Posts: 1,998Member, Greeter, Premium Member Posts: 1,998Member, Greeter, Premium Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I love this thread. I have always felt that while calories in/ calories out is correct, that its not the entire picture.

    Well it may not be the whole picture but the premise of cico still exist as a function of energy balance (bmr + neat + tef +tea = tdee). The bigger question is, what effect does modifing your macronutrients have on that equation. Essentially, which component did very low fat have on that equation or is there an additional component not accounted for.

    I would say that the bias in the energy balance differences really kill the possible outcomes out of the box. They could have easily raised protein levels and adjusted the percentages of fat and carbs down more in line with one another as percentages, and gone from there. Between a possible protein increase, as well as the option of a lesser induced deficit, there was room. Instead they essentially compared an extremely low fat diet (with carb levels above the baseline diet) to a somewhat reduced carb diet that had fat levels at the same point as the baseline diet.

    Combine that with differences in fiber, self set treadmill paces, etc, and a lot of questions could be answered. In this day and age with fiber supplements, that alone seems rather strange to me as not being balanced, when both were below the baseline diet and not very high.

    I'm also shocked that as in depth as some of these studies go, they often don't explain which "constants" they do keep, such as proteins. Though the difference as a percentage in this test was very small, I would think that common sense would be that the proteins would be identical, as in the same type and amount of specific proteins. I would assume they would want to use net metabolizable tables vs Atwater general or specific, but making the proteins exact in duplication would avoid any possible changes at all. Likewise with carbs and fats, keeping them as in line as possible for exact duplication group to group.


    But the test itself does show that despite the basics of CICO, it's a complex thing with complex results, some only short term and some longer term. When you look at the extremes of variance in human diets these days, some of these "majoring in the minors" types of things could all add up. I forget the exact number, but there are upwards of 1000 possible "accepted" methods for calculating energy levels in foods. With studies showing variances near 20% possible in portions of certain populations across the globe, it's not hard to believe that even within one region variances could be high, especially when people eat such differing diets these days.
  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I wanted to start a thread that looks at the metabolic effects of calories. 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:
    1. 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
    2. Diet adherence isn't part of the discussion (which I fully recognize as the most important variable for weight loss and sustainability)
    3. 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.


    Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results inMore Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity

    Many of you have already seen this, it's been reference on the forum a few times. And my intent isn't to use this as the normal LC vs LF, which is better. But merely, my goal is to get others thoughts, or understand why a very low fat diet yielded greater fat loss, while calories and protein were held constant? Would such a study suggest there is a metabolic advantage to cutting fat over carbohydrates in people who do NOT have medical conditions. And more importantly, are all calories equal? If so, why would we see these kinds of results?

    For me, this may suggest that there are some metabolic advantages of certain diets.

    My guess is that the LC diet had less fat loss because the lack of carbs let to glycogen depletion making up for part of the deficit, while there was no glycogen depletion in the LF diet as it held carbs constant. Long term they would have been about identical. Probably.
    edited February 2016
  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member Member
    robertw486 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I love this thread. I have always felt that while calories in/ calories out is correct, that its not the entire picture.

    Well it may not be the whole picture but the premise of cico still exist as a function of energy balance (bmr + neat + tef +tea = tdee). The bigger question is, what effect does modifing your macronutrients have on that equation. Essentially, which component did very low fat have on that equation or is there an additional component not accounted for.

    I would say that the bias in the energy balance differences really kill the possible outcomes out of the box. They could have easily raised protein levels and adjusted the percentages of fat and carbs down more in line with one another as percentages, and gone from there. Between a possible protein increase, as well as the option of a lesser induced deficit, there was room. Instead they essentially compared an extremely low fat diet (with carb levels above the baseline diet) to a somewhat reduced carb diet that had fat levels at the same point as the baseline diet.

    Combine that with differences in fiber, self set treadmill paces, etc, and a lot of questions could be answered. In this day and age with fiber supplements, that alone seems rather strange to me as not being balanced, when both were below the baseline diet and not very high.

    I'm also shocked that as in depth as some of these studies go, they often don't explain which "constants" they do keep, such as proteins. Though the difference as a percentage in this test was very small, I would think that common sense would be that the proteins would be identical, as in the same type and amount of specific proteins. I would assume they would want to use net metabolizable tables vs Atwater general or specific, but making the proteins exact in duplication would avoid any possible changes at all. Likewise with carbs and fats, keeping them as in line as possible for exact duplication group to group.


    But the test itself does show that despite the basics of CICO, it's a complex thing with complex results, some only short term and some longer term. When you look at the extremes of variance in human diets these days, some of these "majoring in the minors" types of things could all add up. I forget the exact number, but there are upwards of 1000 possible "accepted" methods for calculating energy levels in foods. With studies showing variances near 20% possible in portions of certain populations across the globe, it's not hard to believe that even within one region variances could be high, especially when people eat such differing diets these days.

    156603ddfbaf886e2f598a431a0e16b5.png

    ?
    There's a table with the whole rundown of all 3 diets. Most of your complaints here are not accurate to what happened.
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,093Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,093Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    robertw486 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I love this thread. I have always felt that while calories in/ calories out is correct, that its not the entire picture.

    Well it may not be the whole picture but the premise of cico still exist as a function of energy balance (bmr + neat + tef +tea = tdee). The bigger question is, what effect does modifing your macronutrients have on that equation. Essentially, which component did very low fat have on that equation or is there an additional component not accounted for.

    I would say that the bias in the energy balance differences really kill the possible outcomes out of the box. They could have easily raised protein levels and adjusted the percentages of fat and carbs down more in line with one another as percentages, and gone from there. Between a possible protein increase, as well as the option of a lesser induced deficit, there was room. Instead they essentially compared an extremely low fat diet (with carb levels above the baseline diet) to a somewhat reduced carb diet that had fat levels at the same point as the baseline diet.

    Combine that with differences in fiber, self set treadmill paces, etc, and a lot of questions could be answered. In this day and age with fiber supplements, that alone seems rather strange to me as not being balanced, when both were below the baseline diet and not very high.

    I'm also shocked that as in depth as some of these studies go, they often don't explain which "constants" they do keep, such as proteins. Though the difference as a percentage in this test was very small, I would think that common sense would be that the proteins would be identical, as in the same type and amount of specific proteins. I would assume they would want to use net metabolizable tables vs Atwater general or specific, but making the proteins exact in duplication would avoid any possible changes at all. Likewise with carbs and fats, keeping them as in line as possible for exact duplication group to group.


    But the test itself does show that despite the basics of CICO, it's a complex thing with complex results, some only short term and some longer term. When you look at the extremes of variance in human diets these days, some of these "majoring in the minors" types of things could all add up. I forget the exact number, but there are upwards of 1000 possible "accepted" methods for calculating energy levels in foods. With studies showing variances near 20% possible in portions of certain populations across the globe, it's not hard to believe that even within one region variances could be high, especially when people eat such differing diets these days.

    They didn't modify protein from the baseline, as they didn't want that as another variable. One of the biggest complaints was multiple variables were changed, which doesn't allow for one to see which variable had the greatest effect. The only difference in protein was 4g increase from baseline (16 calories is hardly going to make a difference) for the RF.

    I believe one of the main objectives was to dispute this whole nonsense of carbohydrate insulin theory (Taubes), that one must reduce carbs to effectively cut fat. Which I believe this study does support that.

    Kevin Hall has even stated he didn't intend for this test to be utilized in the real world.
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,093Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,093Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    robertw486 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I love this thread. I have always felt that while calories in/ calories out is correct, that its not the entire picture.

    Well it may not be the whole picture but the premise of cico still exist as a function of energy balance (bmr + neat + tef +tea = tdee). The bigger question is, what effect does modifing your macronutrients have on that equation. Essentially, which component did very low fat have on that equation or is there an additional component not accounted for.

    I would say that the bias in the energy balance differences really kill the possible outcomes out of the box. They could have easily raised protein levels and adjusted the percentages of fat and carbs down more in line with one another as percentages, and gone from there. Between a possible protein increase, as well as the option of a lesser induced deficit, there was room. Instead they essentially compared an extremely low fat diet (with carb levels above the baseline diet) to a somewhat reduced carb diet that had fat levels at the same point as the baseline diet.

    Combine that with differences in fiber, self set treadmill paces, etc, and a lot of questions could be answered. In this day and age with fiber supplements, that alone seems rather strange to me as not being balanced, when both were below the baseline diet and not very high.

    I'm also shocked that as in depth as some of these studies go, they often don't explain which "constants" they do keep, such as proteins. Though the difference as a percentage in this test was very small, I would think that common sense would be that the proteins would be identical, as in the same type and amount of specific proteins. I would assume they would want to use net metabolizable tables vs Atwater general or specific, but making the proteins exact in duplication would avoid any possible changes at all. Likewise with carbs and fats, keeping them as in line as possible for exact duplication group to group.


    But the test itself does show that despite the basics of CICO, it's a complex thing with complex results, some only short term and some longer term. When you look at the extremes of variance in human diets these days, some of these "majoring in the minors" types of things could all add up. I forget the exact number, but there are upwards of 1000 possible "accepted" methods for calculating energy levels in foods. With studies showing variances near 20% possible in portions of certain populations across the globe, it's not hard to believe that even within one region variances could be high, especially when people eat such differing diets these days.

    156603ddfbaf886e2f598a431a0e16b5.png

    ?
    There's a table with the whole rundown of all 3 diets. Most of your complaints here are not accurate to what happened.

    I would also like to point out, the increase in sugar for the RF group.
  • girlinahatgirlinahat Posts: 2,955Member Member Posts: 2,955Member Member
    question - does the body burn calories from food in the same way the approximate calories from food are tested in a lab? ie. if a gram of fat has 9 calories when tested in a lab, does the body utilise all of those calories? Can it absorb the energy from it? Are we right to separate the absorption of energy from the absorption of nutrients?

    Any study that relies on food/energy consumption is flawed as the process is flawed. People are not in laboratory conditions, and all variables cannot be fixed. There is a possibility that the absorption of nutrients from different foods may vary from person to person due to their gut flora, so why should this be any different in terms of calorie absorption?

    In terms of losing weight through calorie constriction, whilst it is true that it seemingly does not matter what you eat as long as the calories are reduced, in reality a person constricting calories tends to eat better nutritionally, and will vary their diet to allow for satiety, thus inadvertently choosing foods where the calorie content is absorbed at a slower rate (I'm guessing at this last bit, I genuinely don't know).


  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member Member
    girlinahat wrote: »
    question - does the body burn calories from food in the same way the approximate calories from food are tested in a lab? ie. if a gram of fat has 9 calories when tested in a lab, does the body utilise all of those calories? Can it absorb the energy from it? Are we right to separate the absorption of energy from the absorption of nutrients?

    Any study that relies on food/energy consumption is flawed as the process is flawed. People are not in laboratory conditions, and all variables cannot be fixed. There is a possibility that the absorption of nutrients from different foods may vary from person to person due to their gut flora, so why should this be any different in terms of calorie absorption?

    In terms of losing weight through calorie constriction, whilst it is true that it seemingly does not matter what you eat as long as the calories are reduced, in reality a person constricting calories tends to eat better nutritionally, and will vary their diet to allow for satiety, thus inadvertently choosing foods where the calorie content is absorbed at a slower rate (I'm guessing at this last bit, I genuinely don't know).


    There's two ways calories can be measured. You can either just burn the food and see how much energy gets released, which will give you the total energy contained. That is a higher number than you'd actually get out of the food, and as you can imagine, food manufacturers would rather have a lower number. There comes the second way of determining calories into play.
    The Atwater system, which does take into account the amount of energy that is actually available to a person eating the food. Atwater took the values you get from burning them, and also checked how much energy was still contained in your poop and urine after eating said things and calculated the relative amounts of calories available per gram of protein, fat and carbohydrates out of that.
    This is of course also just an approximation and average, but much closer to the truth than just burning it. It's the best method we have available, as your gut flora isn't the same every day either. Even if you went into a metabolic ward to get your personal absorption rates measured, it could be meaningless a week from now. The idea is that inaccuracies and variations between people are small and even out against each other. Which they mostly do or else no one would be able to properly lose fat through counting calories.

    The things to keep in mind are the following: It is impossible to absorb more energy than is contained in a food.
    That means there is an absolute ceiling to how much you can get from the food you can eat. If that is below what you're burning, you will lose fat, every variable you can imagine would not be able to change that.
    edited February 2016
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    girlinahat wrote: »
    question - does the body burn calories from food in the same way the approximate calories from food are tested in a lab? ie. if a gram of fat has 9 calories when tested in a lab, does the body utilise all of those calories? Can it absorb the energy from it? Are we right to separate the absorption of energy from the absorption of nutrients?

    Any study that relies on food/energy consumption is flawed as the process is flawed. People are not in laboratory conditions, and all variables cannot be fixed. There is a possibility that the absorption of nutrients from different foods may vary from person to person due to their gut flora, so why should this be any different in terms of calorie absorption?

    In terms of losing weight through calorie constriction, whilst it is true that it seemingly does not matter what you eat as long as the calories are reduced, in reality a person constricting calories tends to eat better nutritionally, and will vary their diet to allow for satiety, thus inadvertently choosing foods where the calorie content is absorbed at a slower rate (I'm guessing at this last bit, I genuinely don't know).


    I think this might explain it a bit.
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
    No, we aren't bomb calorimeters, but that's not how food calories are determined and we do juggle macros just fine in healthy individuals.
  • ndj1979ndj1979 Posts: 29,021Member Member Posts: 29,021Member Member
    robertw486 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I love this thread. I have always felt that while calories in/ calories out is correct, that its not the entire picture.

    Well it may not be the whole picture but the premise of cico still exist as a function of energy balance (bmr + neat + tef +tea = tdee). The bigger question is, what effect does modifing your macronutrients have on that equation. Essentially, which component did very low fat have on that equation or is there an additional component not accounted for.

    I would say that the bias in the energy balance differences really kill the possible outcomes out of the box. They could have easily raised protein levels and adjusted the percentages of fat and carbs down more in line with one another as percentages, and gone from there. Between a possible protein increase, as well as the option of a lesser induced deficit, there was room. Instead they essentially compared an extremely low fat diet (with carb levels above the baseline diet) to a somewhat reduced carb diet that had fat levels at the same point as the baseline diet.

    Combine that with differences in fiber, self set treadmill paces, etc, and a lot of questions could be answered. In this day and age with fiber supplements, that alone seems rather strange to me as not being balanced, when both were below the baseline diet and not very high.

    I'm also shocked that as in depth as some of these studies go, they often don't explain which "constants" they do keep, such as proteins. Though the difference as a percentage in this test was very small, I would think that common sense would be that the proteins would be identical, as in the same type and amount of specific proteins. I would assume they would want to use net metabolizable tables vs Atwater general or specific, but making the proteins exact in duplication would avoid any possible changes at all. Likewise with carbs and fats, keeping them as in line as possible for exact duplication group to group.


    But the test itself does show that despite the basics of CICO, it's a complex thing with complex results, some only short term and some longer term. When you look at the extremes of variance in human diets these days, some of these "majoring in the minors" types of things could all add up. I forget the exact number, but there are upwards of 1000 possible "accepted" methods for calculating energy levels in foods. With studies showing variances near 20% possible in portions of certain populations across the globe, it's not hard to believe that even within one region variances could be high, especially when people eat such differing diets these days.

    they clearly kept protein constant if you read the section on macro distribution …..
  • chrissywelsh10chrissywelsh10 Posts: 66Member, Premium Member Posts: 66Member, Premium Member
    Interesting article on calories as a unit of measurement from the BBC.

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160201-why-the-calorie-is-broken

    Food has a general energy amount in it. Overcooking food releases more calories, and your body burns less of them as the food is partially processed for you. Our bodies and their composition extract different calorie amounts. (we actually absorb less from almond and walnuts up to 20% of the calories available but more from other foods) If a raw steak has 200 calories cooking it medium can make it 220 and cooking it well done can make it 240. Nutrition labels don't reflect this, they take an average.

    Accuracy of calorie data has roughly a 10% margin of error.

    Differences in height, body fat, liver size, levels of the stress hormone cortisol, and even gut microbes can influence the energy required to maintain the body’s basic functions. Between two people of the same sex, weight and age, this number may differ by up to 600 calories a day. The time we eat has a factor as different hormones in the liver are released.

    Its not a useless concept, let me stress that. And we don't have an alternative. But try increasing or decreasing food and calorie intake if 1 way isn't working for you.

  • Bry_Fitness70Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,432Member Member Posts: 2,432Member Member
    robertw486 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I love this thread. I have always felt that while calories in/ calories out is correct, that its not the entire picture.

    Well it may not be the whole picture but the premise of cico still exist as a function of energy balance (bmr + neat + tef +tea = tdee). The bigger question is, what effect does modifing your macronutrients have on that equation. Essentially, which component did very low fat have on that equation or is there an additional component not accounted for.

    I would say that the bias in the energy balance differences really kill the possible outcomes out of the box. They could have easily raised protein levels and adjusted the percentages of fat and carbs down more in line with one another as percentages, and gone from there. Between a possible protein increase, as well as the option of a lesser induced deficit, there was room. Instead they essentially compared an extremely low fat diet (with carb levels above the baseline diet) to a somewhat reduced carb diet that had fat levels at the same point as the baseline diet.

    Combine that with differences in fiber, self set treadmill paces, etc, and a lot of questions could be answered. In this day and age with fiber supplements, that alone seems rather strange to me as not being balanced, when both were below the baseline diet and not very high.

    I'm also shocked that as in depth as some of these studies go, they often don't explain which "constants" they do keep, such as proteins. Though the difference as a percentage in this test was very small, I would think that common sense would be that the proteins would be identical, as in the same type and amount of specific proteins. I would assume they would want to use net metabolizable tables vs Atwater general or specific, but making the proteins exact in duplication would avoid any possible changes at all. Likewise with carbs and fats, keeping them as in line as possible for exact duplication group to group.


    But the test itself does show that despite the basics of CICO, it's a complex thing with complex results, some only short term and some longer term. When you look at the extremes of variance in human diets these days, some of these "majoring in the minors" types of things could all add up. I forget the exact number, but there are upwards of 1000 possible "accepted" methods for calculating energy levels in foods. With studies showing variances near 20% possible in portions of certain populations across the globe, it's not hard to believe that even within one region variances could be high, especially when people eat such differing diets these days.

    156603ddfbaf886e2f598a431a0e16b5.png

    ?
    There's a table with the whole rundown of all 3 diets. Most of your complaints here are not accurate to what happened.

    Aside from the other observations, this diet seems odd. Both reduced diets seem unusually high in sodium, the RC diet high in saturated fat, and the RF high in sugar. High fat or high carb doesn't necessarily require consuming high amounts of saturated fat or sugar, these are unusual choices for a study, I would like to see a diet log.
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,093Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,093Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I love this thread. I have always felt that while calories in/ calories out is correct, that its not the entire picture.

    Well it may not be the whole picture but the premise of cico still exist as a function of energy balance (bmr + neat + tef +tea = tdee). The bigger question is, what effect does modifing your macronutrients have on that equation. Essentially, which component did very low fat have on that equation or is there an additional component not accounted for.

    I would say that the bias in the energy balance differences really kill the possible outcomes out of the box. They could have easily raised protein levels and adjusted the percentages of fat and carbs down more in line with one another as percentages, and gone from there. Between a possible protein increase, as well as the option of a lesser induced deficit, there was room. Instead they essentially compared an extremely low fat diet (with carb levels above the baseline diet) to a somewhat reduced carb diet that had fat levels at the same point as the baseline diet.

    Combine that with differences in fiber, self set treadmill paces, etc, and a lot of questions could be answered. In this day and age with fiber supplements, that alone seems rather strange to me as not being balanced, when both were below the baseline diet and not very high.

    I'm also shocked that as in depth as some of these studies go, they often don't explain which "constants" they do keep, such as proteins. Though the difference as a percentage in this test was very small, I would think that common sense would be that the proteins would be identical, as in the same type and amount of specific proteins. I would assume they would want to use net metabolizable tables vs Atwater general or specific, but making the proteins exact in duplication would avoid any possible changes at all. Likewise with carbs and fats, keeping them as in line as possible for exact duplication group to group.


    But the test itself does show that despite the basics of CICO, it's a complex thing with complex results, some only short term and some longer term. When you look at the extremes of variance in human diets these days, some of these "majoring in the minors" types of things could all add up. I forget the exact number, but there are upwards of 1000 possible "accepted" methods for calculating energy levels in foods. With studies showing variances near 20% possible in portions of certain populations across the globe, it's not hard to believe that even within one region variances could be high, especially when people eat such differing diets these days.

    156603ddfbaf886e2f598a431a0e16b5.png

    ?
    There's a table with the whole rundown of all 3 diets. Most of your complaints here are not accurate to what happened.

    Aside from the other observations, this diet seems odd. Both reduced diets seem unusually high in sodium, the RC diet high in saturated fat, and the RF high in sugar. High fat or high carb doesn't necessarily require consuming high amounts of saturated fat or sugar, these are unusual choices for a study, I would like to see a diet log.

    Part of the reason it was done that way, was limiting the variables that were changed. And for people who are working out an hour a day, that isn't that much sodium.
Sign In or Register to comment.