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
-
0 -
All 1 gallon containers in the world hold 1 gallon. The content of what those gallons hold will be different, but it's still a gallon in volume.If all calories were the same than most Americans wouldn't be overfed and malnourished at the same time.
Nutrient values matter for health aspects, but doesn't change energy aspects of a calorie.
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 -
@nvmomketo, right there with you in terms of personal results and 140 gm carbs/day being their definition of "low carb."0
-
Here is the text for that picture.
Hall et al. investigated 19 adults with obesity that selectively restricted dietary carbohydrate versus fat. Cutting carbohydrates increased net fat oxidation while equal calorie fat restriction had no effect. However, cutting fat resulted in more body fat loss than cutting carbohydrates. Mathematical model simulations predicted small long-term differences in body fat.
Highlights- Cutting carbohydrates increased net fat oxidation, but cutting fat by equal calories had no effect
- Cutting fat resulted in more body fat loss as measured by metabolic balance
- Mathematical model simulations predicted small long-term differences in body fat
0 -
-
Here is the text for that picture.
Yes, the picture is the graphical summary from the paper in the OP. It illustrates the change in fat oxidation nicely.
All references to fat loss should be prefixed with "calculated" as the DEXA measured fat losses were not significant. The model prediction of the clinical trial was poor :-
0 -
Here is the text for that picture.
Hall et al. investigated 19 adults with obesity that selectively restricted dietary carbohydrate versus fat. Cutting carbohydrates increased net fat oxidation while equal calorie fat restriction had no effect. However, cutting fat resulted in more body fat loss than cutting carbohydrates. Mathematical model simulations predicted small long-term differences in body fat.
Highlights- Cutting carbohydrates increased net fat oxidation, but cutting fat by equal calories had no effect
- Cutting fat resulted in more body fat loss as measured by metabolic balance indirect calorimetry, but statistically not significant when evaluated with DXA scan.
- Mathematical model simulations predicted small long-term differences in body fat without taking into consideration hormonal or metabolic mechanisms of homeostasis.
^^Corrections.
0 -
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.
Clearly there was weight loss in the fat reduced diet where carbohydrate intake was maintained. In the men the fasting insulin fell on the RF diet by 2.6 pg/ml, p=0.033, from a baseline of 10. The insulin secretion measured by 24h C-peptide is reported to have decreased by 22% (p=0.001) in the case of the RC diet which is perhaps an illustration of how reduced insulin secretion is associated with increased fat oxidation - the RC diet oxidised 400 kcal/day more fat where the RF diet saw a very small NS increase. Less carbs, less insulin, more fat oxidation - in line with what Taubes proposes ?0 -
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.
Clearly there was weight loss in the fat reduced diet where carbohydrate intake was maintained. In the men the fasting insulin fell on the RF diet by 2.6 pg/ml, p=0.033, from a baseline of 10. The insulin secretion measured by 24h C-peptide is reported to have decreased by 22% (p=0.001) in the case of the RC diet which is perhaps an illustration of how reduced insulin secretion is associated with increased fat oxidation - the RC diet oxidised 400 kcal/day more fat where the RF diet saw a very small NS increase. Less carbs, less insulin, more fat oxidation - in line with what Taubes proposes ?
No, because Taubes talks like it's impossible to lose net fat without reducing insulin.
Low carb has more fat oxidation but also more fat intake. It leads to equal amounts total fat lost.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
Clearly there was weight loss in the fat reduced diet where carbohydrate intake was maintained. In the men the fasting insulin fell on the RF diet by 2.6 pg/ml, p=0.033, from a baseline of 10. The insulin secretion measured by 24h C-peptide is reported to have decreased by 22% (p=0.001) in the case of the RC diet which is perhaps an illustration of how reduced insulin secretion is associated with increased fat oxidation - the RC diet oxidised 400 kcal/day more fat where the RF diet saw a very small NS increase. Less carbs, less insulin, more fat oxidation - in line with what Taubes proposes ?
No, because Taubes talks like it's impossible to lose net fat without reducing insulin.
Low carb has more fat oxidation but also more fat intake. It leads to equal amounts total fat lost.
Insulin did reduce in the low fat arm.
The calculated fat loss was indeed greater on low fat because fat intake reduced and everything else was about the same. On low carb the fat oxidation increased substantially but the intake was the same, and as they didn't finish the experiment / do a proper run-in the fat oxidation was suppressed by glycogen depletion.0 -
macchiatto wrote: »@nvmomketo, right there with you in terms of personal results and 140 gm carbs/day being their definition of "low carb."
You should read the explanation for why that is (it was necessary to balance calories without changing other things and still allowed for testing the insulin hypothesis), as well as the discussion of the study I posted above, from examine.com. (The belief is that lower carb would have had slightly better results but been essentially the same as low fat over time.)
But if people will stop claiming 140 g of carbs is low carb, I'd be happy, sure.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Low carb has more fat oxidation but also more fat intake. It leads to equal amounts total fat lost.
Precisely. That someone eating more fat burns more fat is hardly shocking -- you tend to burn what you eat -- but also not significant.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »macchiatto wrote: »@nvmomketo, right there with you in terms of personal results and 140 gm carbs/day being their definition of "low carb."
You should read the explanation for why that is (it was necessary to balance calories without changing other things and still allowed for testing the insulin hypothesis), as well as the discussion of the study I posted above, from examine.com. (The belief is that lower carb would have had slightly better results but been essentially the same as low fat over time.)
But if people will stop claiming 140 g of carbs is low carb, I'd be happy, sure.
Meh, people can find all sorts of ways to justify calling themselves "lower carb". I'm not sure if it's needing to fit in with a group or really wanting to label yourself as something or what. I eat how it works for me. I'm still working on finding macro levels that I'm good with. And I really need to start tracking binge patterns with macro splits.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »macchiatto wrote: »@nvmomketo, right there with you in terms of personal results and 140 gm carbs/day being their definition of "low carb."
You should read the explanation for why that is (it was necessary to balance calories without changing other things and still allowed for testing the insulin hypothesis), as well as the discussion of the study I posted above, from examine.com. (The belief is that lower carb would have had slightly better results but been essentially the same as low fat over time.)
But if people will stop claiming 140 g of carbs is low carb, I'd be happy, sure.
Meh, people can find all sorts of ways to justify calling themselves "lower carb". I'm not sure if it's needing to fit in with a group or really wanting to label yourself as something or what. I eat how it works for me. I'm still working on finding macro levels that I'm good with. And I really need to start tracking binge patterns with macro splits.
+1!!!!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »macchiatto wrote: »@nvmomketo, right there with you in terms of personal results and 140 gm carbs/day being their definition of "low carb."
You should read the explanation for why that is (it was necessary to balance calories without changing other things and still allowed for testing the insulin hypothesis), as well as the discussion of the study I posted above, from examine.com. (The belief is that lower carb would have had slightly better results but been essentially the same as low fat over time.)
But if people will stop claiming 140 g of carbs is low carb, I'd be happy, sure.
Meh, people can find all sorts of ways to justify calling themselves "lower carb". I'm not sure if it's needing to fit in with a group or really wanting to label yourself as something or what. I eat how it works for me. I'm still working on finding macro levels that I'm good with. And I really need to start tracking binge patterns with macro splits.
I'm just biased since I often end up around 140-150 even though I don't cut carbs at all and am certainly not low carb.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....
Actually, this isn't true. Depending on Thyroid levels, hormone levels, etc., some people can gain weight on a 500 calorie deficit diet. The body does amazing things. Sometimes it helps us and sometimes it inadvertently hurts us. It is important to remember that only "normal" and hormonally balanced people will behave as expected during a calorie deficit.
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....
Actually, this isn't true. Depending on Thyroid levels, hormone levels, etc., some people can gain weight on a 500 calorie deficit diet. The body does amazing things. Sometimes it helps us and sometimes it inadvertently hurts us. It is important to remember that only "normal" and hormonally balanced people will behave as expected during a calorie deficit.
No. By definition, you don't gain weight on a deficit. A person with thyroid issues could have their calorie deficit poorly predicted to such an extant that it is off by 500 calories. That's why proper weight loss is a feedback cycle - if you aren't losing weight, you may have to adjust the estimated TDEE. Lowering TDEE repeatedly will eventually cause weight loss, but if it is out of predicted range for no explainable reason, it might be worth consulting a doctor about medical conditions.
I'll also say, thyroid conditions are usually more to the tune of 100 to 200 differences in BMR, and even less in terms of TDEE because if you're moving, your body can't really avoid spending some energy.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....
Actually, this isn't true. Depending on Thyroid levels, hormone levels, etc., some people can gain weight on a 500 calorie deficit diet. The body does amazing things. Sometimes it helps us and sometimes it inadvertently hurts us. It is important to remember that only "normal" and hormonally balanced people will behave as expected during a calorie deficit.
No. By definition, you don't gain weight on a deficit. A person with thyroid issues could have their calorie deficit poorly predicted to such an extant that it is off by 500 calories. That's why proper weight loss is a feedback cycle - if you aren't losing weight, you may have to adjust the estimated TDEE. Lowering TDEE repeatedly will eventually cause weight loss, but if it is out of predicted range for no explainable reason, it might be worth consulting a doctor about medical conditions.
I'll also say, thyroid conditions are usually more to the tune of 100 to 200 differences in BMR, and even less in terms of TDEE because if you're moving, your body can't really avoid spending some energy.
Yes, this. Medical issues, especially hormone imbalances could make online calorie calculators inaccurate, but tdee is personal. A 500 calorie deficit from your own actual maintenance calories will result in weight loss.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Low carb has more fat oxidation but also more fat intake. It leads to equal amounts total fat lost.
Precisely. That someone eating more fat burns more fat is hardly shocking -- you tend to burn what you eat -- but also not significant.
They weren't eating more fat, the LC arm ate the same amount of fat and cut down the carbs. Fat oxidation increased, insulin secretion reduced. See the graphical summary.
The people eating less fat oxidised the same amount of fat, so your hypothesis "you tend to burn what you eat" fails. For that to work the fat oxidation would have gone down on LF and stayed the same on LC surely.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »macchiatto wrote: »@nvmomketo, right there with you in terms of personal results and 140 gm carbs/day being their definition of "low carb."
You should read the explanation for why that is (it was necessary to balance calories without changing other things and still allowed for testing the insulin hypothesis), as well as the discussion of the study I posted above, from examine.com. (The belief is that lower carb would have had slightly better results but been essentially the same as low fat over time.)
But if people will stop claiming 140 g of carbs is low carb, I'd be happy, sure.
Meh, people can find all sorts of ways to justify calling themselves "lower carb". I'm not sure if it's needing to fit in with a group or really wanting to label yourself as something or what. I eat how it works for me. I'm still working on finding macro levels that I'm good with. And I really need to start tracking binge patterns with macro splits.
On it.
Let me think about this, I think I can integrate a min-max moving window analysis to my spreadsheet.
0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Low carb has more fat oxidation but also more fat intake. It leads to equal amounts total fat lost.
Precisely. That someone eating more fat burns more fat is hardly shocking -- you tend to burn what you eat -- but also not significant.
They weren't eating more fat, the LC arm ate the same amount of fat and cut down the carbs. Fat oxidation increased, insulin secretion reduced. See the graphical summary.
The people eating less fat oxidised the same amount of fat, so your hypothesis "you tend to burn what you eat" fails. For that to work the fat oxidation would have gone down on LF and stayed the same on LC surely.
Fat oxidation - Fat intake - fat storage = fat loss/gain.
They're eating in a deficit, so they've got a net fat loss.
Which means, if their fat intake stayed the same, fat oxidation had to increase to create a net fat loss.
Which means, if their fat intake lowered, fat oxidation did not have to increase to create a net fat loss.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Which means, if their fat intake lowered, fat oxidation did not have to increase to create a net fat loss.
Indeed.
Doesn't address the point though "That someone eating more fat burns more fat " didn't happen in this study.
Someone eating less carbohydrate burns more fat did happen.
Are all calories the same ? No. Look at the graphical summary. Two identical calorie changes, two different outcomes. Sorted.
"They're eating in a deficit, so they've got a net fat loss." is supposition on your part. That's what the study was exploring. A significant part of your "net fat loss" of the LC arm was actually supplied by carbohydrates.0 -
Just to reinforce the point
On the left an ~800 cal reduction in fat intake alone left everything else the same (hence the = signs).
On the right an ~800 cal reduction in carb intake produced a 400 cal increase in fat oxidation and a 500 cal decrease in carb oxidation (hence the arrows and the different sized flames).0 -
What IS your point?
The ones eating more fat burned more fat to supply the calorie deficit with energy from their body fat.
The ones who did not eat as much fat were still burning extra fat compared to their intake (= body fat) to supply energy for the calorie deficit.0 -
Just to reinforce the point
On the left an ~800 cal reduction in fat intake alone left everything else the same (hence the = signs).
On the right an ~800 cal reduction in carb intake produced a 400 cal increase in fat oxidation and a 500 cal decrease in carb oxidation (hence the arrows and the different sized flames).
You're failing to recognize that while grams of fat didnt increase, it did increase based on percentage of calories. You have to consider the 30% reduction of calories.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Low carb has more fat oxidation but also more fat intake. It leads to equal amounts total fat lost.
Precisely. That someone eating more fat burns more fat is hardly shocking -- you tend to burn what you eat -- but also not significant.
They weren't eating more fat, the LC arm ate the same amount of fat and cut down the carbs. Fat oxidation increased, insulin secretion reduced. See the graphical summary.
I think what I meant was clear, but in case you aren't just pretending to misunderstand: that someone eating more fat as a percentage of their overall consumption burns more fat is hardly shocking... (the rest is the same).
And yes, of course you must take into account deficit or not. I was assuming deficit and did not realize you were comparing the people at deficit with the baseline diets.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »What IS your point?
Simple enough - two identical changes in calories in, two different outcomes.
Therefore all calories are clearly not the same according to this experiment.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I was assuming deficit and did not realize you were comparing the people at deficit with the baseline diets.
It's an intervention study, we did X and Y or Z happened.
Fat intake did not increase in the LC arm, where fat oxidation increased.
I'm not a big fan of index syndrome where one starts dividing data items by other data items in a vain attempt to find a number that moves in a direction required by preconception.
Hall's half an experiment demonstrated the known physiology that reducing carbohydrate intake increases fat oxidation. Had he stayed around long enough to exploit that fully he might have learned something other than that his model is a bit rubbish at predicting the early days of calorie reduction.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions