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
-
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.
Why are you pretending not to have seen my post where I said fat intake increased as a percentage of overall calories, which it did? Cut carbs, and the percentage of fat (and protein) increases. Cut fat, and the percentage of carbs (and protein) increases.
Your assumption that somehow there's an overall advantage to eating fewer carbs -- that you will burn more fat than the fuel + deficit would explain -- is entirely unsupported.
Also, I'm curious -- you seem to have been doing the keto thing for a while. Care to provide numbers that indicate that there's an advantage to doing so vs. what the deficit would predict?0 -
I am not pretending anything, you appear to be somewhat overfocussed on what you think I'm thinking rather than the facts in the OP.
I have little interest in your indexing and percentages, cut 800 cals of fat and nothing much happened, cut 800 cals of carbs and fat oxidation increased dramatically. Therefore all calories are not equal. Fat oxidation did not decrease because fat intake reduced, it stayed the same, so you don't - as claimed - "burn what you eat".
A deficit is a piece of post hoc calorie accounting or energy balance. It is the consequence of what happens, not the driving force. As stevencloser said the LF arm in this half experiment lost weight/fat because the fat oxidation stayed the same but the fat intake reduced. The LC arm lost weight/fat because the fat oxidation increased for the same fat intake. Different changes, different outcomes.
The advantage to me in doing keto is a lower blood sugar, lower triglycerides, higher HDL (hence lower heart disease risk), and a diet I can stick too with foods I enjoy. As I don't live in a metabolic chamber or possess a faecal calorimeter I can't help you with what my deficit might be. I can tell you that I don't lose significant weight if my fasting blood sugar is elevated above about 120 mg/dl0 -
I am not pretending anything, you appear to be somewhat overfocussed on what you think I'm thinking rather than the facts in the OP.
This is what happened:
2 groups of people eating at or above maintenance (based on the claim that they reduced calories by 30% I get 2667 calories, but don't have access to the whole study any more).
Cut calories of one group by 800 (30%), all from carbs. Cut the calories of the other group by 800 (30%), all from fat.
At this point both groups are eating at a deficit (i.e., they must use body fat to fill the gap). One group is eating moderate carbs (140 g) and high fat (108 g), whereas the other is eating very low fat (17 g) and reasonably high carbs (352).
The low carb group loses more weight (although the model predicts that the results would be closer if the carbs were lower and will even out somewhat over time, with low carb retaining an advantage).
But you object insisting that lower carb still is superior and will lead to better results (and Hall is just too dumb or biased to realize this), because the lower carb people oxidized more fat (NOT body fat, fat overall).
But this is simply a result of what they are eating. The low fat people burn carbs and then turn to fat to make up the difference when they run out. The lower carb people have fewer carbs to burn so burn more fat, but not some amount out of line with the deficit -- indeed, less than the low fat people. There's no support for the idea that you burn extra fat -- you burn what you eat plus what you need to make up the deficit.
The -800 calorie people aren't burning more fat because they changed the macro make-up of their diets. They are burning fat because they are at a deficit. That the group eating fewer carbs and more fat burns fewer carbs and more fat is meaningless.
Personally, I lost weight more rapidly than predicted when eating as many carbs as I wanted, so I find the idea that eating carbs makes it impossible to lose weight or interferes with weight loss to be inaccurate (and I've seen no studies to suggest that my anecdotal experience is weird). That low carb or even keto might be a better choice for someone else due to personal pleasure or satiety is something I've always agreed with. But if you want to assert that your weight loss is extra fast because of it and you burn more net fat (the net being the key concept here) than someone eating more carbs, I'd like to see the numbers.0 -
Yes. Same.0
-
A calorie is a calorie since it's a unit of energy, but that doesn't mean that 200 calories from potato chips will have the same effect on body composition as 200 calories from lean protein and veggies.
0 -
-
-
Reading is hard; much easier to respond to titles. Context is purely optional.0 -
A calorie is a calorie since it's a unit of energy, but that doesn't mean that 200 calories from potato chips will have the same effect on body composition as 200 calories from lean protein and veggies.
This is why a calorie is a calorie doesn't mean a food is a food and no one claims otherwise.
Calories matter for weight, but food choice (i.e., overall diet) matters for nutrition, satiety, health, and in some cases body composition (more for people who are leaner and trying to gain muscle or get to a low body fat percentage, less for obese people losing lots of weight).
In the context of a healthy, balanced diet the fact that you spend an extra 200 calories on chips vs. more lean meat and veg probably won't matter at all for the vast majority of people. Now, obviously, a diet of only chips would be stupid and unhealthy and not good for gaining muscle or satiety, probably, but since no one recommends it, it's hardly worth debunking, is it?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.
Meat and dairy have helped me to lose weight and gain quality muscle. Not sure what you're talking about to be honest?0 -
A calorie is a calorie since it's a unit of energy, but that doesn't mean that 200 calories from potato chips will have the same effect on body composition as 200 calories from lean protein and veggies.
200 calories of something will have about 0 effect on your body composition. It's your total diet that will.0 -
Yes, and also, no.
A calorie is a unit of measurement. So, a calorie = a calorie. Energetically (as in, how many calories it takes to heat 1 gram of water by 1 degree celsius) - all calories are equal.
That being said, as humans are a diverse species with varying genetics, body types, and needs, people will find that calories comprised of differing macronutrients will suit their needs better or worse, based on their background as well as their goals.
People with a "cut" or "muscular" look often eat high levels of protein, for example.0 -
Layne Norton weighs in on calories
https://www.biolayne.com/articles/nutrition/is-a-calorie-truly-a-calorie/0 -
stevencloser wrote: »A calorie is a calorie since it's a unit of energy, but that doesn't mean that 200 calories from potato chips will have the same effect on body composition as 200 calories from lean protein and veggies.
200 calories of something will have about 0 effect on your body composition. It's your total diet that will.
Because context and dosage matter. An often overlooked point.0 -
Honestly, it seems to me you answered your own question in point 1.
Nothing can make a calorie not a calorie.
How our bodies respond to different types of foods is not the definition of a calorie.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.
The reason one would lose more weight on low fat vs. Low calorie is only because low fat would have a higher calorie deficit since a gram of fat is 9 calories and a gram of carbohydrates is 4 calories.0 -
mommarnurse 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.
The reason one would lose more weight on low fat vs. Low calorie is only because low fat would have a higher calorie deficit since a gram of fat is 9 calories and a gram of carbohydrates is 4 calories.
You should read the study. The calories were the same on both diets.0 -
CupcakesMom2 wrote: »I love this thread. I have always felt that while calories in/ calories out is correct, that its not the entire picture.
It IS the entire picture. Everything else is just little details inside the picture. CICO is the end all of the matter.0 -
I think this varies from person to person. It is the fact carbs can increase cancer risks and fats do not that got my attention base on some research. While my 50 pound weigh loss has now been maintained for one year that I am off of most all sugars and all forms of grain all I know is my joint and muscle pain is well managed in my case if I keep total daily carbs <50 grams.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »I think this varies from person to person. It is the fact carbs can increase cancer risks and fats do not that got my attention base on some research. While my 50 pound weigh loss has now been maintained for one year that I am off of most all sugars and all forms of grain all I know is my joint and muscle pain is well managed in my case if I keep total daily carbs <50 grams.
Carbs dont increase cancer. And thr healthiest countries in the world are very heavily carb based.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »It is the fact carbs can increase cancer risks and fats do not that got my attention base on some research.
False -- did you read the report on the lung cancer study?
Causal effect is questionable, but correlation exists for high GI diet AND high sat fat.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »I think this varies from person to person. It is the fact carbs can increase cancer risks and fats do not that got my attention base on some research. While my 50 pound weigh loss has now been maintained for one year that I am off of most all sugars and all forms of grain all I know is my joint and muscle pain is well managed in my case if I keep total daily carbs <50 grams.
@GaleHawkins
Gale you say you 2500-3000 calories and you're pretty much claiming maintenance. Your maintenance is that high? Hard to believe when all you do is walk 1/4 of a mile a day.
You claim that you have 1200 calories in coconut oil but that leaves a ton of calories left. How many grams of protein are you eating while keeping carbs below 50g per day?
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »I think this varies from person to person. It is the fact carbs can increase cancer risks and fats do not that got my attention base on some research. While my 50 pound weigh loss has now been maintained for one year that I am off of most all sugars and all forms of grain all I know is my joint and muscle pain is well managed in my case if I keep total daily carbs <50 grams.
please provide a source for this established fact…..0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I think this varies from person to person. It is the fact carbs can increase cancer risks and fats do not that got my attention base on some research. While my 50 pound weigh loss has now been maintained for one year that I am off of most all sugars and all forms of grain all I know is my joint and muscle pain is well managed in my case if I keep total daily carbs <50 grams.
@GaleHawkins
Gale you say you 2500-3000 calories and you're pretty much claiming maintenance. Your maintenance is that high? Hard to believe when all you do is walk 1/4 of a mile a day.
You claim that you have 1200 calories in coconut oil but that leaves a ton of calories left. How many grams of protein are you eating while keeping carbs below 50g per day?
Those maintenance numbers are really not all that unreasonable. Even if i do no exercise i maintain at 2500. So if you add additional walking and move more, i can see that as reasonable, even for his age. I also suspect i weigh less.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I think this varies from person to person. It is the fact carbs can increase cancer risks and fats do not that got my attention base on some research. While my 50 pound weigh loss has now been maintained for one year that I am off of most all sugars and all forms of grain all I know is my joint and muscle pain is well managed in my case if I keep total daily carbs <50 grams.
@GaleHawkins
Gale you say you 2500-3000 calories and you're pretty much claiming maintenance. Your maintenance is that high? Hard to believe when all you do is walk 1/4 of a mile a day.
You claim that you have 1200 calories in coconut oil but that leaves a ton of calories left. How many grams of protein are you eating while keeping carbs below 50g per day?
Those maintenance numbers are really not all that unreasonable. Even if i do no exercise i maintain at 2500. So if you add additional walking and move more, i can see that as reasonable, even for his age. I also suspect i weigh less.
His numbers still don't make sense. He is, for the most part, sedentary. You are younger and he is 65? How many men at Gale's age, with his medical problems and limitations, have you come across that have a maintenance of 2500-3000.
ETA grammar0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I think this varies from person to person. It is the fact carbs can increase cancer risks and fats do not that got my attention base on some research. While my 50 pound weigh loss has now been maintained for one year that I am off of most all sugars and all forms of grain all I know is my joint and muscle pain is well managed in my case if I keep total daily carbs <50 grams.
@GaleHawkins
Gale you say you 2500-3000 calories and you're pretty much claiming maintenance. Your maintenance is that high? Hard to believe when all you do is walk 1/4 of a mile a day.
You claim that you have 1200 calories in coconut oil but that leaves a ton of calories left. How many grams of protein are you eating while keeping carbs below 50g per day?
Those maintenance numbers are really not all that unreasonable. Even if i do no exercise i maintain at 2500. So if you add additional walking and move more, i can see that as reasonable, even for his age. I also suspect i weigh less.
Comorbidities, age, and muscle mass all make an incredible amount of difference for maintenance level calories. At age 65 with a medical condition that severely limits not only exercise but regular daily activity level as Mr. Hawkins has previously described, his muscle mass will be severely deteriorated from the norm. Deteriorated muscle mass doesn't require the caloric load for maintenance that standard does, nor does limited mobility.
For example, myself as a 5'7" woman at 43 years of age, 125 lbs, and severely limited in activity for an extended period of time, my daily maintenance calories are 1600. When I was active, prior to my disability, I could eat over 2000 calories a day.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I don't want this to turn into a "let's bash Gale Hawkins' event. it's just an example, in my case, of a misconception that can happen between the norm of healthy, physically capable adults, and the disabled or those with medical conditions that limit mobility.
When lurkers and new people to the forums are reading through threads and trying to pick up information, it can be confusing. It's helpful to explain things like this when people who have been in the forums for a long time are advocating specific eating habits.0 -
This content has been removed.
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