Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are all calories the same??
Replies
-
robertw486 wrote: »CupcakesMom2 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.
?
There's a table with the whole rundown of all 3 diets. Most of your complaints here are not accurate to what happened.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »CupcakesMom2 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.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »CupcakesMom2 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.
?
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.0 -
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).
0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »CupcakesMom2 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 …..0 -
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.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »CupcakesMom2 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.
?
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.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »CupcakesMom2 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.
?
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.0 -
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:
- 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.
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.
Sorry, I'm going to disagree. Not that I don't think that metabolic advantages probably do exist but that this paper does not prove them.
First off - I'm a big fan of Hill et al. I think their work on biological modelling is top notch and I've been following their work for years.
However, let's look at the research.
First - their actual study results (my bold and italics):
"While both diets led to significant decreases in DXA-determined fat mass compared to baseline (p < 0.002) (Table 3 and Figure 3B), DXA was not sufficiently sensitive to detect a significant difference in fat mass change between the RC and RF diets. Figure 3C illustrates that both diets led to weight loss (p < 0.0001), with the RC diet resulting in greater weight loss than the RF diet (p = 0.02). The mathematical model simulations closely matched the cumulative fat loss measurements for both diets (Figure 3D)."
So, whatever changes we are seeing are within the limits of detection and quite small. Other studies that the authors cite have found no difference with the two diet types. Here, the others worked with a significantly more sensitive assay of fat loss via indirect calorimetry. This is great - and they were then able to show very small greater fat loss on a low fat diet vs the low carb diet even though the low carb diet showed higher weight loss (probably due to water sheathing effect - and , by the way, the authors model doesn't take that into consideration currently.)
BUT two issues - as any low-carb'er will argue, there is a known adaptation period in keto dieting - a 6 day chamber study doesn't allow for that effect to fully take place. AND the study individuals were all in a period of restricted activity (since chambered) so, real-life projection to six months doesn't consider possible changes in CHO efficiency due to this new energy use restriction.
We are looking at an expected change of 0.1kg of weight for the research period of a week. Now, given the intrinsic error in weight measurement, DXA scans, macro composition, etc. this is just noise for the general dieter. One cannot take a 6 day borderline-significant result then project it to 6 months and consider it as proof of real life applicability, if the point it to demonstrate that one diet gives better results than the other. Lucky, Hall and co. aren't trying to do that. The are trying to build a physiological model - not validate dietary types.
And yes, I believe, if anything this proves that this is "majoring in the minors" - any discussion of potential weight loss without considering factors affecting adherence is poking yourself in the eye. Why? Because weight loss is relatively easy - weight loss maintenance - the long term adherence to habits that keep weight off is much harder.
I think the authors do a great job of outlining the limitations of their work. Worth noting:
"Indeed, the model simulations suggest that isocaloric reduced-energy diets over a wide range of carbohydrate and fat content would lead to only small differences in body fat and energy expenditure over extended durations. In other words, while the present study demonstrated the theoretical possibility that isocaloric diets differing in carbohydrate and fat can result in differing body fat losses, the body acts to minimise such differences. The endocrine and metabolic adaptations that allow for the relative insensitivity of body fat to dietary macronutrient composition may themselves have effects on health over the long term, but this was not investigated in the present study.
Translation of our results to real-world weight-loss diets for treatment of obesity is limited since the experimental design and model simulations relied on strict control of food intake, which is unrealistic in free-living individuals. While our results suggest that the experimental reduced-fat diet was more effective at inducing body fat loss than the reduced-carbohydrate diet, diet adherence was strictly enforced. We did not address whether it would be easier to adhere to a reduced-fat or a reduced-carbohydrate diet under free-living conditions. Since diet adherence is likely the most important determinant of body fat loss, we suspect that previously observed differences in weight loss and body fat change during outpatient diet interventions (Foster et al., 2010; Gardner et al., 2007; Shai et al., 2008) were primarily due to differences in overall calorie intake rather than any metabolic advantage of a low-carbohydrate diet."0 -
chrissywelsh10 wrote: »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.
And the chance of two such people meeting is 0.5%.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
The vast, vast majority of people is so close to each other, the difference in BMR is less than an apple a day.
And no, a 200 calorie steak will not become 240. If it has 200, it has 200 but you might only get 180 out of it. This article is misrepresenting things left and right. It's blowing inaccuracies out of proportion by pretending they only go in one direction. "These inaccuracies add up." No they don't. They subtract from each other just as much. That's how averages work, BBC.
And jeez, half that stuff I don't even want to start with, you could fill whole threads with discussion on some of the crap that article says.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »chrissywelsh10 wrote: »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.
And the chance of two such people meeting is 0.5%.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
The vast, vast majority of people is so close to each other, the difference in BMR is less than an apple a day.
And no, a 200 calorie steak will not become 240. If it has 200, it has 200 but you might only get 180 out of it. This article is misrepresenting things left and right. It's blowing inaccuracies out of proportion by pretending they only go in one direction. "These inaccuracies add up." No they don't. They subtract from each other just as much. That's how averages work, BBC.
And jeez, half that stuff I don't even want to start with, you could fill whole threads with discussion on some of the crap that article says.
That's a big apple. A 300 calorie apple. There is a 53% chance that the difference between two individuals will be greater than 100 cals.0 -
Noted. An apple or two it is.0
-
chrissywelsh10 wrote: »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.
No, baseline metabolism isn't liable to differ by 600 calories per day between two people other than people who are extreme outliers. 96% of people should be within +/- 200 calories of the average for resting metabolism, and that's for everyone, not just people with same height, weight, age, and sex. Of course the BBC has no source listed for that claim.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »chrissywelsh10 wrote: »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.
And the chance of two such people meeting is 0.5%.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
The vast, vast majority of people is so close to each other, the difference in BMR is less than an apple a day.
And no, a 200 calorie steak will not become 240. If it has 200, it has 200 but you might only get 180 out of it. This article is misrepresenting things left and right. It's blowing inaccuracies out of proportion by pretending they only go in one direction. "These inaccuracies add up." No they don't. They subtract from each other just as much. That's how averages work, BBC.
And jeez, half that stuff I don't even want to start with, you could fill whole threads with discussion on some of the crap that article says.
That's a big apple. A 300 calorie apple. There is a 53% chance that the difference between two individuals will be greater than 100 cals.
The study Examine referred to was for all people, not even just same height, weight, age, and sex. The chances of two people with all those the same having 100 calorie difference is even lower than that 53%.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »CupcakesMom2 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.
My primary point on the protein was that if they had bumped it slightly in the baseline diet, they would have had more room to reduce carbs in the restricted diets. But being that they obviously changed the composition of the fats and carbs when they could have kept them constant, it makes me wonder how much of a control the baseline diet really was.
Being that the specific fats and carbs changed in every group somewhat, it makes me wonder if the protein forms changed beyond the very slight increase volume for the RF group. The fiber I bring up as it's known that fiber calories vary highly with which method is used, but also as they impact the foods eating with the fiber. I would think that would have been reasonably easy to keep consistent across the test.0 -
No, all calories are not the same. Over time if you're consuming more processed foods, dairy, meat then that will add more weight than if you consume a whole foods and mostly plant based diet high in antioxidants, and nutrients.
sorry, but that is wrong.
If person A is in a 500 calorie deficit and eats processed foods, dairy, and meat and Person B is eating a plant based and whole foods diet, they will both lose the same amount of weight.
Unless, of course, you have some peer reviewed studies that show that a whole food, plant based diet somehow override CICO and the basic laws of math and physics....
Speaking from personal experience. This also isn't right. If I eat all processed meals vs plant based and have the same caloric intake. I will lose more weight with plant based. I just watched it happen 2015. Then I changed my diet in January eating more plant based food.0 -
EvgeniZyntx 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:
- 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.
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.
Sorry, I'm going to disagree. Not that I don't think that metabolic advantages probably do exist but that this paper does not prove them.
First off - I'm a big fan of Hill et al. I think their work on biological modelling is top notch and I've been following their work for years.
However, let's look at the research.
First - their actual study results (my bold and italics):
"While both diets led to significant decreases in DXA-determined fat mass compared to baseline (p < 0.002) (Table 3 and Figure 3B), DXA was not sufficiently sensitive to detect a significant difference in fat mass change between the RC and RF diets. Figure 3C illustrates that both diets led to weight loss (p < 0.0001), with the RC diet resulting in greater weight loss than the RF diet (p = 0.02). The mathematical model simulations closely matched the cumulative fat loss measurements for both diets (Figure 3D)."
So, whatever changes we are seeing are within the limits of detection and quite small. Other studies that the authors cite have found no difference with the two diet types. Here, the others worked with a significantly more sensitive assay of fat loss via indirect calorimetry. This is great - and they were then able to show very small greater fat loss on a low fat diet vs the low carb diet even though the low carb diet showed higher weight loss (probably due to water sheathing effect - and , by the way, the authors model doesn't take that into consideration currently.)
BUT two issues - as any low-carb'er will argue, there is a known adaptation period in keto dieting - a 6 day chamber study doesn't allow for that effect to fully take place. AND the study individuals were all in a period of restricted activity (since chambered) so, real-life projection to six months doesn't consider possible changes in CHO efficiency due to this new energy use restriction.
We are looking at an expected change of 0.1kg of weight for the research period of a week. Now, given the intrinsic error in weight measurement, DXA scans, macro composition, etc. this is just noise for the general dieter. One cannot take a 6 day borderline-significant result then project it to 6 months and consider it as proof of real life applicability, if the point it to demonstrate that one diet gives better results than the other. Lucky, Hall and co. aren't trying to do that. The are trying to build a physiological model - not validate dietary types.
And yes, I believe, if anything this proves that this is "majoring in the minors" - any discussion of potential weight loss without considering factors affecting adherence is poking yourself in the eye. Why? Because weight loss is relatively easy - weight loss maintenance - the long term adherence to habits that keep weight off is much harder.
I think the authors do a great job of outlining the limitations of their work. Worth noting:
"Indeed, the model simulations suggest that isocaloric reduced-energy diets over a wide range of carbohydrate and fat content would lead to only small differences in body fat and energy expenditure over extended durations. In other words, while the present study demonstrated the theoretical possibility that isocaloric diets differing in carbohydrate and fat can result in differing body fat losses, the body acts to minimise such differences. The endocrine and metabolic adaptations that allow for the relative insensitivity of body fat to dietary macronutrient composition may themselves have effects on health over the long term, but this was not investigated in the present study.
Translation of our results to real-world weight-loss diets for treatment of obesity is limited since the experimental design and model simulations relied on strict control of food intake, which is unrealistic in free-living individuals. While our results suggest that the experimental reduced-fat diet was more effective at inducing body fat loss than the reduced-carbohydrate diet, diet adherence was strictly enforced. We did not address whether it would be easier to adhere to a reduced-fat or a reduced-carbohydrate diet under free-living conditions. Since diet adherence is likely the most important determinant of body fat loss, we suspect that previously observed differences in weight loss and body fat change during outpatient diet interventions (Foster et al., 2010; Gardner et al., 2007; Shai et al., 2008) were primarily due to differences in overall calorie intake rather than any metabolic advantage of a low-carbohydrate diet."
So regarding the bold, I will bring up an interview with KH post release of this articleKevin Hall wrote:Another complaint is that the study only lasted for 6 days and therefore was not long enough for subjects to become “fat adapted”. However, it actually takes less than a week to reach a plateau in mobilizing fat from adipose tissue to provide the fuel required to support the increased fat oxidation which also reaches a plateau within 1 week. Many previous studies have observed this rapid transition to increase fat metabolism and it was also observed in our study with the RC diet. There is no evidence that fat oxidation increases after the first several days of cutting carbohydrates. However, this does not negate the fact that longer time periods, perhaps weeks, may be required to optimize exercise performance or improve general feelings of well-being on low carbohydrate diets. This is what most people mean when they say “fat adapted”, but exercise performance and cognitive function were not important for our study results.
Many of my critics in the low-carb camp have ignored the caveats that this basic human physiology study does not imply that low-carb diets don’t work. They may even be preferable for many people. I have repeatedly acknowledged that prescribing low-carb diets appears to be more effective in outpatient randomized controlled trials, at least for several months when diet adherence is likely to be highest. The question is why? Our small contribution is that Mr. Taubes’ version of the carbohydrate-insulin theory likely isn’t the explanation.
And I definitely realize that real life applicability and dietary adherence as a much greater indicator of success because you can't succeed if you can't follow a diet. I learned that several times with Paleo.0 -
EvgeniZyntx 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:
- 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.
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.
Sorry, I'm going to disagree. Not that I don't think that metabolic advantages probably do exist but that this paper does not prove them.
First off - I'm a big fan of Hill et al. I think their work on biological modelling is top notch and I've been following their work for years.
However, let's look at the research.
First - their actual study results (my bold and italics):
"While both diets led to significant decreases in DXA-determined fat mass compared to baseline (p < 0.002) (Table 3 and Figure 3B), DXA was not sufficiently sensitive to detect a significant difference in fat mass change between the RC and RF diets. Figure 3C illustrates that both diets led to weight loss (p < 0.0001), with the RC diet resulting in greater weight loss than the RF diet (p = 0.02). The mathematical model simulations closely matched the cumulative fat loss measurements for both diets (Figure 3D)."
So, whatever changes we are seeing are within the limits of detection and quite small. Other studies that the authors cite have found no difference with the two diet types. Here, the others worked with a significantly more sensitive assay of fat loss via indirect calorimetry. This is great - and they were then able to show very small greater fat loss on a low fat diet vs the low carb diet even though the low carb diet showed higher weight loss (probably due to water sheathing effect - and , by the way, the authors model doesn't take that into consideration currently.)
BUT two issues - as any low-carb'er will argue, there is a known adaptation period in keto dieting - a 6 day chamber study doesn't allow for that effect to fully take place. AND the study individuals were all in a period of restricted activity (since chambered) so, real-life projection to six months doesn't consider possible changes in CHO efficiency due to this new energy use restriction.
We are looking at an expected change of 0.1kg of weight for the research period of a week. Now, given the intrinsic error in weight measurement, DXA scans, macro composition, etc. this is just noise for the general dieter. One cannot take a 6 day borderline-significant result then project it to 6 months and consider it as proof of real life applicability, if the point it to demonstrate that one diet gives better results than the other. Lucky, Hall and co. aren't trying to do that. The are trying to build a physiological model - not validate dietary types.
And yes, I believe, if anything this proves that this is "majoring in the minors" - any discussion of potential weight loss without considering factors affecting adherence is poking yourself in the eye. Why? Because weight loss is relatively easy - weight loss maintenance - the long term adherence to habits that keep weight off is much harder.
I think the authors do a great job of outlining the limitations of their work. Worth noting:
"Indeed, the model simulations suggest that isocaloric reduced-energy diets over a wide range of carbohydrate and fat content would lead to only small differences in body fat and energy expenditure over extended durations. In other words, while the present study demonstrated the theoretical possibility that isocaloric diets differing in carbohydrate and fat can result in differing body fat losses, the body acts to minimise such differences. The endocrine and metabolic adaptations that allow for the relative insensitivity of body fat to dietary macronutrient composition may themselves have effects on health over the long term, but this was not investigated in the present study.
Translation of our results to real-world weight-loss diets for treatment of obesity is limited since the experimental design and model simulations relied on strict control of food intake, which is unrealistic in free-living individuals. While our results suggest that the experimental reduced-fat diet was more effective at inducing body fat loss than the reduced-carbohydrate diet, diet adherence was strictly enforced. We did not address whether it would be easier to adhere to a reduced-fat or a reduced-carbohydrate diet under free-living conditions. Since diet adherence is likely the most important determinant of body fat loss, we suspect that previously observed differences in weight loss and body fat change during outpatient diet interventions (Foster et al., 2010; Gardner et al., 2007; Shai et al., 2008) were primarily due to differences in overall calorie intake rather than any metabolic advantage of a low-carbohydrate diet."
So regarding the bold, I will bring up an interview with KH post release of this articleKevin Hall wrote:Another complaint is that the study only lasted for 6 days and therefore was not long enough for subjects to become “fat adapted”. However, it actually takes less than a week to reach a plateau in mobilizing fat from adipose tissue to provide the fuel required to support the increased fat oxidation which also reaches a plateau within 1 week. Many previous studies have observed this rapid transition to increase fat metabolism and it was also observed in our study with the RC diet. There is no evidence that fat oxidation increases after the first several days of cutting carbohydrates. However, this does not negate the fact that longer time periods, perhaps weeks, may be required to optimize exercise performance or improve general feelings of well-being on low carbohydrate diets. This is what most people mean when they say “fat adapted”, but exercise performance and cognitive function were not important for our study results.
Many of my critics in the low-carb camp have ignored the caveats that this basic human physiology study does not imply that low-carb diets don’t work. They may even be preferable for many people. I have repeatedly acknowledged that prescribing low-carb diets appears to be more effective in outpatient randomized controlled trials, at least for several months when diet adherence is likely to be highest. The question is why? Our small contribution is that Mr. Taubes’ version of the carbohydrate-insulin theory likely isn’t the explanation.
And I definitely realize that real life applicability and dietary adherence as a much greater indicator of success because you can't succeed if you can't follow a diet. I learned that several times with Paleo.
Ok - see bold (and as you know, I'm not in the low carb camp) but if the process is non stable during the week and his model doesn't take into consideration that period then how do we know it can be extended to 6 months accurately and isn't a data regression overshoot? I'd say that, unfortunately, this still needs a minimum of 2 weeks to be validated in a model.
(and I like KH dig into Taubes SO MUCH !!!)0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx 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:
- 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.
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.
Sorry, I'm going to disagree. Not that I don't think that metabolic advantages probably do exist but that this paper does not prove them.
First off - I'm a big fan of Hill et al. I think their work on biological modelling is top notch and I've been following their work for years.
However, let's look at the research.
First - their actual study results (my bold and italics):
"While both diets led to significant decreases in DXA-determined fat mass compared to baseline (p < 0.002) (Table 3 and Figure 3B), DXA was not sufficiently sensitive to detect a significant difference in fat mass change between the RC and RF diets. Figure 3C illustrates that both diets led to weight loss (p < 0.0001), with the RC diet resulting in greater weight loss than the RF diet (p = 0.02). The mathematical model simulations closely matched the cumulative fat loss measurements for both diets (Figure 3D)."
So, whatever changes we are seeing are within the limits of detection and quite small. Other studies that the authors cite have found no difference with the two diet types. Here, the others worked with a significantly more sensitive assay of fat loss via indirect calorimetry. This is great - and they were then able to show very small greater fat loss on a low fat diet vs the low carb diet even though the low carb diet showed higher weight loss (probably due to water sheathing effect - and , by the way, the authors model doesn't take that into consideration currently.)
BUT two issues - as any low-carb'er will argue, there is a known adaptation period in keto dieting - a 6 day chamber study doesn't allow for that effect to fully take place. AND the study individuals were all in a period of restricted activity (since chambered) so, real-life projection to six months doesn't consider possible changes in CHO efficiency due to this new energy use restriction.
We are looking at an expected change of 0.1kg of weight for the research period of a week. Now, given the intrinsic error in weight measurement, DXA scans, macro composition, etc. this is just noise for the general dieter. One cannot take a 6 day borderline-significant result then project it to 6 months and consider it as proof of real life applicability, if the point it to demonstrate that one diet gives better results than the other. Lucky, Hall and co. aren't trying to do that. The are trying to build a physiological model - not validate dietary types.
And yes, I believe, if anything this proves that this is "majoring in the minors" - any discussion of potential weight loss without considering factors affecting adherence is poking yourself in the eye. Why? Because weight loss is relatively easy - weight loss maintenance - the long term adherence to habits that keep weight off is much harder.
I think the authors do a great job of outlining the limitations of their work. Worth noting:
"Indeed, the model simulations suggest that isocaloric reduced-energy diets over a wide range of carbohydrate and fat content would lead to only small differences in body fat and energy expenditure over extended durations. In other words, while the present study demonstrated the theoretical possibility that isocaloric diets differing in carbohydrate and fat can result in differing body fat losses, the body acts to minimise such differences. The endocrine and metabolic adaptations that allow for the relative insensitivity of body fat to dietary macronutrient composition may themselves have effects on health over the long term, but this was not investigated in the present study.
Translation of our results to real-world weight-loss diets for treatment of obesity is limited since the experimental design and model simulations relied on strict control of food intake, which is unrealistic in free-living individuals. While our results suggest that the experimental reduced-fat diet was more effective at inducing body fat loss than the reduced-carbohydrate diet, diet adherence was strictly enforced. We did not address whether it would be easier to adhere to a reduced-fat or a reduced-carbohydrate diet under free-living conditions. Since diet adherence is likely the most important determinant of body fat loss, we suspect that previously observed differences in weight loss and body fat change during outpatient diet interventions (Foster et al., 2010; Gardner et al., 2007; Shai et al., 2008) were primarily due to differences in overall calorie intake rather than any metabolic advantage of a low-carbohydrate diet."
So regarding the bold, I will bring up an interview with KH post release of this articleKevin Hall wrote:Another complaint is that the study only lasted for 6 days and therefore was not long enough for subjects to become “fat adapted”. However, it actually takes less than a week to reach a plateau in mobilizing fat from adipose tissue to provide the fuel required to support the increased fat oxidation which also reaches a plateau within 1 week. Many previous studies have observed this rapid transition to increase fat metabolism and it was also observed in our study with the RC diet. There is no evidence that fat oxidation increases after the first several days of cutting carbohydrates. However, this does not negate the fact that longer time periods, perhaps weeks, may be required to optimize exercise performance or improve general feelings of well-being on low carbohydrate diets. This is what most people mean when they say “fat adapted”, but exercise performance and cognitive function were not important for our study results.
Many of my critics in the low-carb camp have ignored the caveats that this basic human physiology study does not imply that low-carb diets don’t work. They may even be preferable for many people. I have repeatedly acknowledged that prescribing low-carb diets appears to be more effective in outpatient randomized controlled trials, at least for several months when diet adherence is likely to be highest. The question is why? Our small contribution is that Mr. Taubes’ version of the carbohydrate-insulin theory likely isn’t the explanation.
And I definitely realize that real life applicability and dietary adherence as a much greater indicator of success because you can't succeed if you can't follow a diet. I learned that several times with Paleo.
Ok - see bold (and as you know, I'm not in the low carb camp) but if the process is non stable during the week and his model doesn't take into consideration that period then how do we know it can be extended to 6 months accurately and isn't a data regression overshoot? I'd say that, unfortunately, this still needs a minimum of 2 weeks to be validated in a model.
(and I like KH dig into Taubes SO MUCH !!!)
This was my favorite part of his article, too.
0 -
tcarroll120 wrote: »No, all calories are not the same. Over time if you're consuming more processed foods, dairy, meat then that will add more weight than if you consume a whole foods and mostly plant based diet high in antioxidants, and nutrients.
sorry, but that is wrong.
If person A is in a 500 calorie deficit and eats processed foods, dairy, and meat and Person B is eating a plant based and whole foods diet, they will both lose the same amount of weight.
Unless, of course, you have some peer reviewed studies that show that a whole food, plant based diet somehow override CICO and the basic laws of math and physics....
Speaking from personal experience. This also isn't right. If I eat all processed meals vs plant based and have the same caloric intake. I will lose more weight with plant based. I just watched it happen 2015. Then I changed my diet in January eating more plant based food.
What if you eat all processed AND plant-based foods?
And what do you think "processed" means in this context? I can't see how being processed would stop one from losing weight. I generally process my food before eating it, and even raw dieters will, based on my perusal of raw "cookbooks."0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tcarroll120 wrote: »No, all calories are not the same. Over time if you're consuming more processed foods, dairy, meat then that will add more weight than if you consume a whole foods and mostly plant based diet high in antioxidants, and nutrients.
sorry, but that is wrong.
If person A is in a 500 calorie deficit and eats processed foods, dairy, and meat and Person B is eating a plant based and whole foods diet, they will both lose the same amount of weight.
Unless, of course, you have some peer reviewed studies that show that a whole food, plant based diet somehow override CICO and the basic laws of math and physics....
Speaking from personal experience. This also isn't right. If I eat all processed meals vs plant based and have the same caloric intake. I will lose more weight with plant based. I just watched it happen 2015. Then I changed my diet in January eating more plant based food.
What if you eat all processed AND plant-based foods?
And what do you think "processed" means in this context? I can't see how being processed would stop one from losing weight. I generally process my food before eating it, and even raw dieters will, based on my perusal of raw "cookbooks."
Another thing to take into consideration is food logging practices. Since many ultra processed foods are highly caloric, it creates situation where one can be a lot more off on their actual calorie intake. Switching to low calorie, high volume foods, can make it easier to stay within your caloric range window. Essentially, you would have a lot more room for logging error with veggies than you would with pizza, cookies or chips.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tcarroll120 wrote: »No, all calories are not the same. Over time if you're consuming more processed foods, dairy, meat then that will add more weight than if you consume a whole foods and mostly plant based diet high in antioxidants, and nutrients.
sorry, but that is wrong.
If person A is in a 500 calorie deficit and eats processed foods, dairy, and meat and Person B is eating a plant based and whole foods diet, they will both lose the same amount of weight.
Unless, of course, you have some peer reviewed studies that show that a whole food, plant based diet somehow override CICO and the basic laws of math and physics....
Speaking from personal experience. This also isn't right. If I eat all processed meals vs plant based and have the same caloric intake. I will lose more weight with plant based. I just watched it happen 2015. Then I changed my diet in January eating more plant based food.
What if you eat all processed AND plant-based foods?
And what do you think "processed" means in this context? I can't see how being processed would stop one from losing weight. I generally process my food before eating it, and even raw dieters will, based on my perusal of raw "cookbooks."
Another thing to take into consideration is food logging practices. Since many ultra processed foods are highly caloric, it creates situation where one can be a lot more off on their actual calorie intake. Switching to low calorie, high volume foods, can make it easier to stay within your caloric range window. Essentially, you would have a lot more room for logging error with veggies than you would with pizza, cookies or chips.
Especially when you consider how few people actually weigh their packaged food. Being 5% overweight on a bag of baby carrots is a lot different than being 5% overweight on a Snickers bar!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tcarroll120 wrote: »No, all calories are not the same. Over time if you're consuming more processed foods, dairy, meat then that will add more weight than if you consume a whole foods and mostly plant based diet high in antioxidants, and nutrients.
sorry, but that is wrong.
If person A is in a 500 calorie deficit and eats processed foods, dairy, and meat and Person B is eating a plant based and whole foods diet, they will both lose the same amount of weight.
Unless, of course, you have some peer reviewed studies that show that a whole food, plant based diet somehow override CICO and the basic laws of math and physics....
Speaking from personal experience. This also isn't right. If I eat all processed meals vs plant based and have the same caloric intake. I will lose more weight with plant based. I just watched it happen 2015. Then I changed my diet in January eating more plant based food.
What if you eat all processed AND plant-based foods?
And what do you think "processed" means in this context? I can't see how being processed would stop one from losing weight. I generally process my food before eating it, and even raw dieters will, based on my perusal of raw "cookbooks."
Another thing to take into consideration is food logging practices. Since many ultra processed foods are highly caloric, it creates situation where one can be a lot more off on their actual calorie intake. Switching to low calorie, high volume foods, can make it easier to stay within your caloric range window. Essentially, you would have a lot more room for logging error with veggies than you would with pizza, cookies or chips.
This. Also, if I eat a lot of very calorie dense food, I'm eating a lower volume, and I'm more likely to get hungry and want to snack, even if it puts me over. Doing that consistently, I could see losing less weight because although my goal is the same, I have a harder time adhering to it (and if I'm only over 100-150, I may tell myself close enough). Just like if I'm 50-100 calories under but I'm feeling full, I could also call that hitting goal and leave it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tcarroll120 wrote: »No, all calories are not the same. Over time if you're consuming more processed foods, dairy, meat then that will add more weight than if you consume a whole foods and mostly plant based diet high in antioxidants, and nutrients.
sorry, but that is wrong.
If person A is in a 500 calorie deficit and eats processed foods, dairy, and meat and Person B is eating a plant based and whole foods diet, they will both lose the same amount of weight.
Unless, of course, you have some peer reviewed studies that show that a whole food, plant based diet somehow override CICO and the basic laws of math and physics....
Speaking from personal experience. This also isn't right. If I eat all processed meals vs plant based and have the same caloric intake. I will lose more weight with plant based. I just watched it happen 2015. Then I changed my diet in January eating more plant based food.
What if you eat all processed AND plant-based foods?
And what do you think "processed" means in this context? I can't see how being processed would stop one from losing weight. I generally process my food before eating it, and even raw dieters will, based on my perusal of raw "cookbooks."
Another thing to take into consideration is food logging practices. Since many ultra processed foods are highly caloric, it creates situation where one can be a lot more off on their actual calorie intake. Switching to low calorie, high volume foods, can make it easier to stay within your caloric range window. Essentially, you would have a lot more room for logging error with veggies than you would with pizza, cookies or chips.
This is true, but it's true whether the veggies are frozen or not. ;-) I also find processed foods like dry pasta, smoked salmon, boneless, skinless chicken breast, and cottage cheese to be quite easy to measure properly.
Switching away from things like baked goods you don't make yourself (whether or not homemade by someone else) and restaurant meals and fried stuff often does make logging easier and the errors more likely be the underestimates than over, but IMO that doesn't have much to do with processed vs. not (and I assume you agree). I'd be miserable if I did a diet based mostly around frozen meals, but some do and find it easier, since the logging is so simple. (And, of course, if they maintain a calorie deficit they lose as well as anyone.)0 -
My n=1 would seem to indicate that calories are not created equal. I ate an average of 1500 kcal per day for four months in which time I lost 2-3 lbs per week when I was only expecting 1-1.5 lbs. I was not obese and continued losing quickly into the normal BMI. I exercised only sporadically and not often strenuously. The only cause of this i can see is the food choices I made.
This guy experimented on himself with high carb and lw carb diets of identical calories. He got two very different results. Assuming he counted calories accurately, for him a calorie is not a calorie.
http://live.smashthefat.com/the-21-day-5000-calorie-carb-challenge/
http://live.smashthefat.com/5000-calorie-challenge-day-21/BecomingBane wrote: »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.
Longer time period would be nice.... An actual low carb diet would be nice too. 140g per day is considered to be the upper limit of low carb for some and moderate carb for others.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
Agreed. In the very short time scale of this trial, with no run-in on the appropriate diets, the LC arm depleted glycogen which provided carbohydrate energy from reserves to the tune of about 280 kcal/day. By extrapolation it would have taken about 9 days for this to run out to equilibrium.
So they had less calculated fat loss because they used carbohydrate reserves. Fat oxidation was higher on low carb, but they never got to exploit that fully.
(there was actually some glycogen depletion on the LF arm too).0 -
+1Will read the study here in a bit.
My stance on calories is the following:- All calories are the same from an energy standpoint.
- Not all calories are nutritonally equal
- what matters is overall diet hits micro and macro requirements.
did they control for protein intake in all groups?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Disagree. People GAIN weight because of eating calorie surplus, not maintenance regardless of make up.No, all calories are not the same. Over time if you're consuming more processed foods, dairy, meat then that will add more weight than if you consume a whole foods and mostly plant based diet high in antioxidants, and nutrients.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions