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.
A quick refresher on a calorie is a calorie ....
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Other than a trendy catch phrase used on MFP, what part of having a greater than simplistic science based understanding troubles people? Do you wish that all science is generalized, restricted at a certain level, or somehow implied to be less exact due to not caring about specifics?
In that we all know about things like TEF and that there are some foods that seem to have fewer calories digested than originally thought, so the calorie counts seem to be overstated (like almonds), your posts often make me wonder what you point is.
Maybe I'm reading them wrong and you have no other point, but in context I tend to think your point is that people can't know exact calories in and out, so shouldn't worry about it OR, on the other hand, that they should focus on all these other things (like TEF) in making food choices. I explained upthread why I think that's a bad idea and would love a response if you are arguing otherwise.
I don't think it's helpful for newbies to be given reason to say "oh, it's just too complicated" or "it's impossible to know what I'm eating." The fact is, as stephen pointed out, that all of the things you are talking about tend to OVERSTATE calories, so they don't at all provide a reason why counting wouldn't lead to a loss. (I think they are part of why my initial losses were higher than projected, although more important was the fact that I was more active than I had realized.)If a full understanding is majoring in the minors, I'd wonder why everyone feels the need to log food. Using known inexact estimations with a food scale still results in inexact results. Is that majoring in the minors, when a human scale would better account for all variables?
There are lots of studies that indicate that logging food (even just writing down what you eat without calories) tends to result in people eating fewer calories.
Immediate results or short term results are often helpful for people, and trying to eat less and weighing isn't that, especially if (like many people, and probably most fat people) one has a hard time monitoring how much one is eating. I've lost without logging or counting, personally, but I was following a pretty rigid way of eating (3 meals, breakfast always the same, really strong ideas about the proper amounts and food choices for the others). From what I've seen of newbies at MFP few of them--and not the ones struggling--have the ability to do this easily, they tend to eat more on impulse and not have a sense of what a balanced meal is or how many calories is in what. I mean, I'm amazed by all the posts from non vegetarians on how to get more protein. Logging is a really helpful learning experience if you are in this boat.
It's similar to how I need to weigh myself to stick to a weight loss plan. People say why not just measure or why not use how your clothes fit? But those things aren't as immediate and for me more feedback is better.
I don't see how worrying about whether some foods really provide fewer calories than the estimate or TEF could help me in the same way (and I know that's so, so don't need to be lectured about it endlessly, I just don't see how it's practically helpful). Perhaps you could clear this up for me so I can understand your point?
This is what I was getting at. What advice, in 3 sentences or less, would give the average person the biggest bang for their weight loss buck so to speak. Because I feel like introducing all these "yeah buts" like TEF, into these discussions when a person will probably truly benefit from the most basic application of CICO, is not helpful.
There's another thread going right now about CICO which also illustrates these points. People naturally want to believe weight loss is difficult and complex, when the basic principles are simple and will have measurable impact for the average person even if implemented with a directionally correct approach. The people who need to worry about optimal precision and accuracy are such a minute percentage of the population, I feel that introducing these caveats into every thread is a distraction and the end result is reinforcing that weight loss is too hard so why even bother trying.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Other than a trendy catch phrase used on MFP, what part of having a greater than simplistic science based understanding troubles people? Do you wish that all science is generalized, restricted at a certain level, or somehow implied to be less exact due to not caring about specifics?
In that we all know about things like TEF and that there are some foods that seem to have fewer calories digested than originally thought, so the calorie counts seem to be overstated (like almonds), your posts often make me wonder what you point is.
Maybe I'm reading them wrong and you have no other point, but in context I tend to think your point is that people can't know exact calories in and out, so shouldn't worry about it OR, on the other hand, that they should focus on all these other things (like TEF) in making food choices. I explained upthread why I think that's a bad idea and would love a response if you are arguing otherwise.
I don't think it's helpful for newbies to be given reason to say "oh, it's just too complicated" or "it's impossible to know what I'm eating." The fact is, as stephen pointed out, that all of the things you are talking about tend to OVERSTATE calories, so they don't at all provide a reason why counting wouldn't lead to a loss. (I think they are part of why my initial losses were higher than projected, although more important was the fact that I was more active than I had realized.)If a full understanding is majoring in the minors, I'd wonder why everyone feels the need to log food. Using known inexact estimations with a food scale still results in inexact results. Is that majoring in the minors, when a human scale would better account for all variables?
There are lots of studies that indicate that logging food (even just writing down what you eat without calories) tends to result in people eating fewer calories.
Immediate results or short term results are often helpful for people, and trying to eat less and weighing isn't that, especially if (like many people, and probably most fat people) one has a hard time monitoring how much one is eating. I've lost without logging or counting, personally, but I was following a pretty rigid way of eating (3 meals, breakfast always the same, really strong ideas about the proper amounts and food choices for the others). From what I've seen of newbies at MFP few of them--and not the ones struggling--have the ability to do this easily, they tend to eat more on impulse and not have a sense of what a balanced meal is or how many calories is in what. I mean, I'm amazed by all the posts from non vegetarians on how to get more protein. Logging is a really helpful learning experience if you are in this boat.
It's similar to how I need to weigh myself to stick to a weight loss plan. People say why not just measure or why not use how your clothes fit? But those things aren't as immediate and for me more feedback is better.
I don't see how worrying about whether some foods really provide fewer calories than the estimate or TEF could help me in the same way (and I know that's so, so don't need to be lectured about it endlessly, I just don't see how it's practically helpful). Perhaps you could clear this up for me so I can understand your point?
This is what I was getting at. What advice, in 3 sentences or less, would give the average person the biggest bang for their weight loss buck so to speak. Because I feel like introducing all these "yeah buts" like TEF, into these discussions when a person will probably truly benefit from the most basic application of CICO, is not helpful.
There's another thread going right now about CICO which also illustrates these points. People naturally want to believe weight loss is difficult and complex, when the basic principles are simple and will have measurable impact for the average person even if implemented with a directionally correct approach. The people who need to worry about optimal precision and accuracy are such a minute percentage of the population, I feel that introducing these caveats into every thread is a distraction and the end result is reinforcing that weight loss is too hard so why even bother trying.
yea, but that is too simplistic …..
we need a five paragraph explanation that lays out how complex it is, even though at the same time figuring out one's TDEE is not that complex...0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Other than a trendy catch phrase used on MFP, what part of having a greater than simplistic science based understanding troubles people? Do you wish that all science is generalized, restricted at a certain level, or somehow implied to be less exact due to not caring about specifics?
In that we all know about things like TEF and that there are some foods that seem to have fewer calories digested than originally thought, so the calorie counts seem to be overstated (like almonds), your posts often make me wonder what you point is.
Maybe I'm reading them wrong and you have no other point, but in context I tend to think your point is that people can't know exact calories in and out, so shouldn't worry about it OR, on the other hand, that they should focus on all these other things (like TEF) in making food choices. I explained upthread why I think that's a bad idea and would love a response if you are arguing otherwise.
I don't think it's helpful for newbies to be given reason to say "oh, it's just too complicated" or "it's impossible to know what I'm eating." The fact is, as stephen pointed out, that all of the things you are talking about tend to OVERSTATE calories, so they don't at all provide a reason why counting wouldn't lead to a loss. (I think they are part of why my initial losses were higher than projected, although more important was the fact that I was more active than I had realized.)If a full understanding is majoring in the minors, I'd wonder why everyone feels the need to log food. Using known inexact estimations with a food scale still results in inexact results. Is that majoring in the minors, when a human scale would better account for all variables?
There are lots of studies that indicate that logging food (even just writing down what you eat without calories) tends to result in people eating fewer calories.
Immediate results or short term results are often helpful for people, and trying to eat less and weighing isn't that, especially if (like many people, and probably most fat people) one has a hard time monitoring how much one is eating. I've lost without logging or counting, personally, but I was following a pretty rigid way of eating (3 meals, breakfast always the same, really strong ideas about the proper amounts and food choices for the others). From what I've seen of newbies at MFP few of them--and not the ones struggling--have the ability to do this easily, they tend to eat more on impulse and not have a sense of what a balanced meal is or how many calories is in what. I mean, I'm amazed by all the posts from non vegetarians on how to get more protein. Logging is a really helpful learning experience if you are in this boat.
It's similar to how I need to weigh myself to stick to a weight loss plan. People say why not just measure or why not use how your clothes fit? But those things aren't as immediate and for me more feedback is better.
I don't see how worrying about whether some foods really provide fewer calories than the estimate or TEF could help me in the same way (and I know that's so, so don't need to be lectured about it endlessly, I just don't see how it's practically helpful). Perhaps you could clear this up for me so I can understand your point?
This is what I was getting at. What advice, in 3 sentences or less, would give the average person the biggest bang for their weight loss buck so to speak. Because I feel like introducing all these "yeah buts" like TEF, into these discussions when a person will probably truly benefit from the most basic application of CICO, is not helpful.
There's another thread going right now about CICO which also illustrates these points. People naturally want to believe weight loss is difficult and complex, when the basic principles are simple and will have measurable impact for the average person even if implemented with a directionally correct approach. The people who need to worry about optimal precision and accuracy are such a minute percentage of the population, I feel that introducing these caveats into every thread is a distraction and the end result is reinforcing that weight loss is too hard so why even bother trying.
yea, but that is too simplistic …..
we need a five paragraph explanation that lays out how complex it is, even though at the same time figuring out one's TDEE is not that complex...
It's just disappointing because I feel like in the threads where someone inexperienced is genuinely asking for help, those kind of details are the last thing they need to be focusing on. For nutrition debate, fine, have at it. All the charts and decimal driven calculations you want can be trotted out. But in a thread where someone is looking for basic understanding and methods to get them on the right track, those details are a distraction at best and a derail at worst. And most of the time they aren't even accompanied with a helpful suggestion. How is a morbidly obese person supposed to measure and account for TEF anyway?
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Other than a trendy catch phrase used on MFP, what part of having a greater than simplistic science based understanding troubles people? Do you wish that all science is generalized, restricted at a certain level, or somehow implied to be less exact due to not caring about specifics?
In that we all know about things like TEF and that there are some foods that seem to have fewer calories digested than originally thought, so the calorie counts seem to be overstated (like almonds), your posts often make me wonder what you point is.
Maybe I'm reading them wrong and you have no other point, but in context I tend to think your point is that people can't know exact calories in and out, so shouldn't worry about it OR, on the other hand, that they should focus on all these other things (like TEF) in making food choices. I explained upthread why I think that's a bad idea and would love a response if you are arguing otherwise.
I don't think it's helpful for newbies to be given reason to say "oh, it's just too complicated" or "it's impossible to know what I'm eating." The fact is, as stephen pointed out, that all of the things you are talking about tend to OVERSTATE calories, so they don't at all provide a reason why counting wouldn't lead to a loss. (I think they are part of why my initial losses were higher than projected, although more important was the fact that I was more active than I had realized.)If a full understanding is majoring in the minors, I'd wonder why everyone feels the need to log food. Using known inexact estimations with a food scale still results in inexact results. Is that majoring in the minors, when a human scale would better account for all variables?
There are lots of studies that indicate that logging food (even just writing down what you eat without calories) tends to result in people eating fewer calories.
Immediate results or short term results are often helpful for people, and trying to eat less and weighing isn't that, especially if (like many people, and probably most fat people) one has a hard time monitoring how much one is eating. I've lost without logging or counting, personally, but I was following a pretty rigid way of eating (3 meals, breakfast always the same, really strong ideas about the proper amounts and food choices for the others). From what I've seen of newbies at MFP few of them--and not the ones struggling--have the ability to do this easily, they tend to eat more on impulse and not have a sense of what a balanced meal is or how many calories is in what. I mean, I'm amazed by all the posts from non vegetarians on how to get more protein. Logging is a really helpful learning experience if you are in this boat.
It's similar to how I need to weigh myself to stick to a weight loss plan. People say why not just measure or why not use how your clothes fit? But those things aren't as immediate and for me more feedback is better.
I don't see how worrying about whether some foods really provide fewer calories than the estimate or TEF could help me in the same way (and I know that's so, so don't need to be lectured about it endlessly, I just don't see how it's practically helpful). Perhaps you could clear this up for me so I can understand your point?
This is what I was getting at. What advice, in 3 sentences or less, would give the average person the biggest bang for their weight loss buck so to speak. Because I feel like introducing all these "yeah buts" like TEF, into these discussions when a person will probably truly benefit from the most basic application of CICO, is not helpful.
There's another thread going right now about CICO which also illustrates these points. People naturally want to believe weight loss is difficult and complex, when the basic principles are simple and will have measurable impact for the average person even if implemented with a directionally correct approach. The people who need to worry about optimal precision and accuracy are such a minute percentage of the population, I feel that introducing these caveats into every thread is a distraction and the end result is reinforcing that weight loss is too hard so why even bother trying.
yea, but that is too simplistic …..
we need a five paragraph explanation that lays out how complex it is, even though at the same time figuring out one's TDEE is not that complex...
It's just disappointing because I feel like in the threads where someone inexperienced is genuinely asking for help, those kind of details are the last thing they need to be focusing on. For nutrition debate, fine, have at it. All the charts and decimal driven calculations you want can be trotted out. But in a thread where someone is looking for basic understanding and methods to get them on the right track, those details are a distraction at best and a derail at worst. And most of the time they aren't even accompanied with a helpful suggestion. How is a morbidly obese person supposed to measure and account for TEF anyway?
i was being sarcastic..
and at the end of the day does it really matter that one calorie of this really equals 1.0002 calories of that???
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Other than a trendy catch phrase used on MFP, what part of having a greater than simplistic science based understanding troubles people? Do you wish that all science is generalized, restricted at a certain level, or somehow implied to be less exact due to not caring about specifics?
In that we all know about things like TEF and that there are some foods that seem to have fewer calories digested than originally thought, so the calorie counts seem to be overstated (like almonds), your posts often make me wonder what you point is.
Maybe I'm reading them wrong and you have no other point, but in context I tend to think your point is that people can't know exact calories in and out, so shouldn't worry about it OR, on the other hand, that they should focus on all these other things (like TEF) in making food choices. I explained upthread why I think that's a bad idea and would love a response if you are arguing otherwise.
I don't think it's helpful for newbies to be given reason to say "oh, it's just too complicated" or "it's impossible to know what I'm eating." The fact is, as stephen pointed out, that all of the things you are talking about tend to OVERSTATE calories, so they don't at all provide a reason why counting wouldn't lead to a loss. (I think they are part of why my initial losses were higher than projected, although more important was the fact that I was more active than I had realized.)If a full understanding is majoring in the minors, I'd wonder why everyone feels the need to log food. Using known inexact estimations with a food scale still results in inexact results. Is that majoring in the minors, when a human scale would better account for all variables?
There are lots of studies that indicate that logging food (even just writing down what you eat without calories) tends to result in people eating fewer calories.
Immediate results or short term results are often helpful for people, and trying to eat less and weighing isn't that, especially if (like many people, and probably most fat people) one has a hard time monitoring how much one is eating. I've lost without logging or counting, personally, but I was following a pretty rigid way of eating (3 meals, breakfast always the same, really strong ideas about the proper amounts and food choices for the others). From what I've seen of newbies at MFP few of them--and not the ones struggling--have the ability to do this easily, they tend to eat more on impulse and not have a sense of what a balanced meal is or how many calories is in what. I mean, I'm amazed by all the posts from non vegetarians on how to get more protein. Logging is a really helpful learning experience if you are in this boat.
It's similar to how I need to weigh myself to stick to a weight loss plan. People say why not just measure or why not use how your clothes fit? But those things aren't as immediate and for me more feedback is better.
I don't see how worrying about whether some foods really provide fewer calories than the estimate or TEF could help me in the same way (and I know that's so, so don't need to be lectured about it endlessly, I just don't see how it's practically helpful). Perhaps you could clear this up for me so I can understand your point?
This is what I was getting at. What advice, in 3 sentences or less, would give the average person the biggest bang for their weight loss buck so to speak. Because I feel like introducing all these "yeah buts" like TEF, into these discussions when a person will probably truly benefit from the most basic application of CICO, is not helpful.
There's another thread going right now about CICO which also illustrates these points. People naturally want to believe weight loss is difficult and complex, when the basic principles are simple and will have measurable impact for the average person even if implemented with a directionally correct approach. The people who need to worry about optimal precision and accuracy are such a minute percentage of the population, I feel that introducing these caveats into every thread is a distraction and the end result is reinforcing that weight loss is too hard so why even bother trying.
yea, but that is too simplistic …..
we need a five paragraph explanation that lays out how complex it is, even though at the same time figuring out one's TDEE is not that complex...
It's just disappointing because I feel like in the threads where someone inexperienced is genuinely asking for help, those kind of details are the last thing they need to be focusing on. For nutrition debate, fine, have at it. All the charts and decimal driven calculations you want can be trotted out. But in a thread where someone is looking for basic understanding and methods to get them on the right track, those details are a distraction at best and a derail at worst. And most of the time they aren't even accompanied with a helpful suggestion. How is a morbidly obese person supposed to measure and account for TEF anyway?
i was being sarcastic..
and at the end of the day does it really matter that one calorie of this really equals 1.0002 calories of that???
Oh I know. We are in agreement. My comments are directed toward those who continue to post those type of caveats (as was my question posed above which hasn't yet been answered). What advice would @robertw486 or @yarwell provide to someone who is asking for advice that would be helpful and not necessarily distract or discourage them from their efforts?
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Other than a trendy catch phrase used on MFP, what part of having a greater than simplistic science based understanding troubles people? Do you wish that all science is generalized, restricted at a certain level, or somehow implied to be less exact due to not caring about specifics?
In that we all know about things like TEF and that there are some foods that seem to have fewer calories digested than originally thought, so the calorie counts seem to be overstated (like almonds), your posts often make me wonder what you point is.
Maybe I'm reading them wrong and you have no other point, but in context I tend to think your point is that people can't know exact calories in and out, so shouldn't worry about it OR, on the other hand, that they should focus on all these other things (like TEF) in making food choices. I explained upthread why I think that's a bad idea and would love a response if you are arguing otherwise.
I don't think it's helpful for newbies to be given reason to say "oh, it's just too complicated" or "it's impossible to know what I'm eating." The fact is, as stephen pointed out, that all of the things you are talking about tend to OVERSTATE calories, so they don't at all provide a reason why counting wouldn't lead to a loss. (I think they are part of why my initial losses were higher than projected, although more important was the fact that I was more active than I had realized.)If a full understanding is majoring in the minors, I'd wonder why everyone feels the need to log food. Using known inexact estimations with a food scale still results in inexact results. Is that majoring in the minors, when a human scale would better account for all variables?
There are lots of studies that indicate that logging food (even just writing down what you eat without calories) tends to result in people eating fewer calories.
Immediate results or short term results are often helpful for people, and trying to eat less and weighing isn't that, especially if (like many people, and probably most fat people) one has a hard time monitoring how much one is eating. I've lost without logging or counting, personally, but I was following a pretty rigid way of eating (3 meals, breakfast always the same, really strong ideas about the proper amounts and food choices for the others). From what I've seen of newbies at MFP few of them--and not the ones struggling--have the ability to do this easily, they tend to eat more on impulse and not have a sense of what a balanced meal is or how many calories is in what. I mean, I'm amazed by all the posts from non vegetarians on how to get more protein. Logging is a really helpful learning experience if you are in this boat.
It's similar to how I need to weigh myself to stick to a weight loss plan. People say why not just measure or why not use how your clothes fit? But those things aren't as immediate and for me more feedback is better.
I don't see how worrying about whether some foods really provide fewer calories than the estimate or TEF could help me in the same way (and I know that's so, so don't need to be lectured about it endlessly, I just don't see how it's practically helpful). Perhaps you could clear this up for me so I can understand your point?
This is what I was getting at. What advice, in 3 sentences or less, would give the average person the biggest bang for their weight loss buck so to speak. Because I feel like introducing all these "yeah buts" like TEF, into these discussions when a person will probably truly benefit from the most basic application of CICO, is not helpful.
There's another thread going right now about CICO which also illustrates these points. People naturally want to believe weight loss is difficult and complex, when the basic principles are simple and will have measurable impact for the average person even if implemented with a directionally correct approach. The people who need to worry about optimal precision and accuracy are such a minute percentage of the population, I feel that introducing these caveats into every thread is a distraction and the end result is reinforcing that weight loss is too hard so why even bother trying.
yea, but that is too simplistic …..
we need a five paragraph explanation that lays out how complex it is, even though at the same time figuring out one's TDEE is not that complex...
It's just disappointing because I feel like in the threads where someone inexperienced is genuinely asking for help, those kind of details are the last thing they need to be focusing on. For nutrition debate, fine, have at it. All the charts and decimal driven calculations you want can be trotted out. But in a thread where someone is looking for basic understanding and methods to get them on the right track, those details are a distraction at best and a derail at worst. And most of the time they aren't even accompanied with a helpful suggestion. How is a morbidly obese person supposed to measure and account for TEF anyway?
i was being sarcastic..
and at the end of the day does it really matter that one calorie of this really equals 1.0002 calories of that???
Oh I know. We are in agreement. My comments are directed toward those who continue to post those type of caveats (as was my question posed above which hasn't yet been answered). What advice would @robertw486 or @yarwell provide to someone who is asking for advice that would be helpful and not necessarily distract or discourage them from their efforts?
i guess they would say learn a complex mathematical formula that allows you to break down each calories to truly know its worth …..I mean its not like people have any thing else to do ...0 -
robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »There's one I cite all the time, titled "Is a calories a calories?" where they go into all those little Details you love so much and tell you all about how those don't matter in the big picture.
Actually unless you are referencing another study, they do no such thing.
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Even though you are once again bringing up TEF, their conclusion that a calorie is indeed a calorie brings up the errors in the reality vs assumed.
I find it comical that people are angry that I state "a calorie is a calorie" is a simplistic view, especially since one of the early comments in this study is that "A calorie, by its simplest definition, is a unit of energy and is equivalent to 4.184 absolute J. "
"CONCLUSION
We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.
In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."
Bold and italics for emphasis. I can only assume their version of "small error" somehow covers that other studies state differences of 10% and greater with diets not at all uncommon in the world today.
If the expenditure impact as referenced in the second paragraph is less than one third, then it seems to me that two thirds of the error is still not accounted for. No surprise, considering that studies focused on the input side find errors in the calculations on a regular basis.queenliz99 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »There's one I cite all the time, titled "Is a calories a calories?" where they go into all those little Details you love so much and tell you all about how those don't matter in the big picture.
The big picture. Majoring in minors
Other than a trendy catch phrase used on MFP, what part of having a greater than simplistic science based understanding troubles people? Do you wish that all science is generalized, restricted at a certain level, or somehow implied to be less exact due to not caring about specifics?
If a full understanding is majoring in the minors, I'd wonder why everyone feels the need to log food. Using known inexact estimations with a food scale still results in inexact results. Is that majoring in the minors, when a human scale would better account for all variables?
I'm sure it's been pointed out before, but if not, you seemed to skip over this part of the conclusion.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »There's one I cite all the time, titled "Is a calories a calories?" where they go into all those little Details you love so much and tell you all about how those don't matter in the big picture.
Actually unless you are referencing another study, they do no such thing.
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Even though you are once again bringing up TEF, their conclusion that a calorie is indeed a calorie brings up the errors in the reality vs assumed.
I find it comical that people are angry that I state "a calorie is a calorie" is a simplistic view, especially since one of the early comments in this study is that "A calorie, by its simplest definition, is a unit of energy and is equivalent to 4.184 absolute J. "
"CONCLUSION
We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.
In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."
Bold and italics for emphasis. I can only assume their version of "small error" somehow covers that other studies state differences of 10% and greater with diets not at all uncommon in the world today.
If the expenditure impact as referenced in the second paragraph is less than one third, then it seems to me that two thirds of the error is still not accounted for. No surprise, considering that studies focused on the input side find errors in the calculations on a regular basis.queenliz99 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »There's one I cite all the time, titled "Is a calories a calories?" where they go into all those little Details you love so much and tell you all about how those don't matter in the big picture.
The big picture. Majoring in minors
Other than a trendy catch phrase used on MFP, what part of having a greater than simplistic science based understanding troubles people? Do you wish that all science is generalized, restricted at a certain level, or somehow implied to be less exact due to not caring about specifics?
If a full understanding is majoring in the minors, I'd wonder why everyone feels the need to log food. Using known inexact estimations with a food scale still results in inexact results. Is that majoring in the minors, when a human scale would better account for all variables?
I'm sure it's been pointed out before, but if not, you seemed to skip over this part of the conclusion.
that is the simplistic part that must be ignored….because too simple...0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Other than a trendy catch phrase used on MFP, what part of having a greater than simplistic science based understanding troubles people? Do you wish that all science is generalized, restricted at a certain level, or somehow implied to be less exact due to not caring about specifics?
In that we all know about things like TEF and that there are some foods that seem to have fewer calories digested than originally thought, so the calorie counts seem to be overstated (like almonds), your posts often make me wonder what you point is.
Maybe I'm reading them wrong and you have no other point, but in context I tend to think your point is that people can't know exact calories in and out, so shouldn't worry about it OR, on the other hand, that they should focus on all these other things (like TEF) in making food choices. I explained upthread why I think that's a bad idea and would love a response if you are arguing otherwise.
I don't think it's helpful for newbies to be given reason to say "oh, it's just too complicated" or "it's impossible to know what I'm eating." The fact is, as stephen pointed out, that all of the things you are talking about tend to OVERSTATE calories, so they don't at all provide a reason why counting wouldn't lead to a loss. (I think they are part of why my initial losses were higher than projected, although more important was the fact that I was more active than I had realized.)If a full understanding is majoring in the minors, I'd wonder why everyone feels the need to log food. Using known inexact estimations with a food scale still results in inexact results. Is that majoring in the minors, when a human scale would better account for all variables?
There are lots of studies that indicate that logging food (even just writing down what you eat without calories) tends to result in people eating fewer calories.
Immediate results or short term results are often helpful for people, and trying to eat less and weighing isn't that, especially if (like many people, and probably most fat people) one has a hard time monitoring how much one is eating. I've lost without logging or counting, personally, but I was following a pretty rigid way of eating (3 meals, breakfast always the same, really strong ideas about the proper amounts and food choices for the others). From what I've seen of newbies at MFP few of them--and not the ones struggling--have the ability to do this easily, they tend to eat more on impulse and not have a sense of what a balanced meal is or how many calories is in what. I mean, I'm amazed by all the posts from non vegetarians on how to get more protein. Logging is a really helpful learning experience if you are in this boat.
It's similar to how I need to weigh myself to stick to a weight loss plan. People say why not just measure or why not use how your clothes fit? But those things aren't as immediate and for me more feedback is better.
I don't see how worrying about whether some foods really provide fewer calories than the estimate or TEF could help me in the same way (and I know that's so, so don't need to be lectured about it endlessly, I just don't see how it's practically helpful). Perhaps you could clear this up for me so I can understand your point?
This is what I was getting at. What advice, in 3 sentences or less, would give the average person the biggest bang for their weight loss buck so to speak. Because I feel like introducing all these "yeah buts" like TEF, into these discussions when a person will probably truly benefit from the most basic application of CICO, is not helpful.
There's another thread going right now about CICO which also illustrates these points. People naturally want to believe weight loss is difficult and complex, when the basic principles are simple and will have measurable impact for the average person even if implemented with a directionally correct approach. The people who need to worry about optimal precision and accuracy are such a minute percentage of the population, I feel that introducing these caveats into every thread is a distraction and the end result is reinforcing that weight loss is too hard so why even bother trying.
yea, but that is too simplistic …..
we need a five paragraph explanation that lays out how complex it is, even though at the same time figuring out one's TDEE is not that complex...
It's just disappointing because I feel like in the threads where someone inexperienced is genuinely asking for help, those kind of details are the last thing they need to be focusing on. For nutrition debate, fine, have at it. All the charts and decimal driven calculations you want can be trotted out. But in a thread where someone is looking for basic understanding and methods to get them on the right track, those details are a distraction at best and a derail at worst. And most of the time they aren't even accompanied with a helpful suggestion. How is a morbidly obese person supposed to measure and account for TEF anyway?
i was being sarcastic..
and at the end of the day does it really matter that one calorie of this really equals 1.0002 calories of that???
Oh I know. We are in agreement. My comments are directed toward those who continue to post those type of caveats (as was my question posed above which hasn't yet been answered). What advice would @robertw486 or @yarwell provide to someone who is asking for advice that would be helpful and not necessarily distract or discourage them from their efforts?
i guess they would say learn a complex mathematical formula that allows you to break down each calories to truly know its worth …..I mean its not like people have any thing else to do ...
I think the more likely thing that would come from studies like RobertW linked is that eventually the Atwater factors for some foods will be corrected.
While I will argue that for purposes of thermodynamics, yes, we are a machine, not something too complex for thermodynamics (such things don't exist), we are definitely not a bomb calorimeter. Atwaters system already reflects this in things like protein excretes nitrogen during the total consumption of it, which means even though a bomb calorimeter might read 5.7 kCal/g, people end up digesting more like 4.1 kCal/gram (I might be thinking of the more precise number for typical carbs with 4.1). The almond study contends that a similar correction might be needed when using almond fat as ingredient.
Which is something people don't get about calorie and nutrient counts on items - most of it doesn't come from directly burning anything either. Most calorie counts on food use the USDA database of ingredients with set amounts of macros per amount and calorie coefficients per amount of macro present. If almonds need a correction, that's fine, correct it. It doesn't make the case that a calorie isn't a calorie, it makes the case that a food in the list was incorrect in how we measured the digestible calorie content of it. It gets kind of despicable that people like Lustig use that study to tout that a calorie isn't just a calorie. I imagine if the study's findings are eventually adopted, Lustig will have to resort to mentioning how many calories are in gasoline, so the calorie counters would have you say drink it if you'r starving, because he makes his book and appearance circuit based on being a contrarian, not on actually improving the system.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Other than a trendy catch phrase used on MFP, what part of having a greater than simplistic science based understanding troubles people? Do you wish that all science is generalized, restricted at a certain level, or somehow implied to be less exact due to not caring about specifics?
In that we all know about things like TEF and that there are some foods that seem to have fewer calories digested than originally thought, so the calorie counts seem to be overstated (like almonds), your posts often make me wonder what you point is.
Maybe I'm reading them wrong and you have no other point, but in context I tend to think your point is that people can't know exact calories in and out, so shouldn't worry about it OR, on the other hand, that they should focus on all these other things (like TEF) in making food choices. I explained upthread why I think that's a bad idea and would love a response if you are arguing otherwise.
I don't think it's helpful for newbies to be given reason to say "oh, it's just too complicated" or "it's impossible to know what I'm eating." The fact is, as stephen pointed out, that all of the things you are talking about tend to OVERSTATE calories, so they don't at all provide a reason why counting wouldn't lead to a loss. (I think they are part of why my initial losses were higher than projected, although more important was the fact that I was more active than I had realized.)If a full understanding is majoring in the minors, I'd wonder why everyone feels the need to log food. Using known inexact estimations with a food scale still results in inexact results. Is that majoring in the minors, when a human scale would better account for all variables?
There are lots of studies that indicate that logging food (even just writing down what you eat without calories) tends to result in people eating fewer calories.
Immediate results or short term results are often helpful for people, and trying to eat less and weighing isn't that, especially if (like many people, and probably most fat people) one has a hard time monitoring how much one is eating. I've lost without logging or counting, personally, but I was following a pretty rigid way of eating (3 meals, breakfast always the same, really strong ideas about the proper amounts and food choices for the others). From what I've seen of newbies at MFP few of them--and not the ones struggling--have the ability to do this easily, they tend to eat more on impulse and not have a sense of what a balanced meal is or how many calories is in what. I mean, I'm amazed by all the posts from non vegetarians on how to get more protein. Logging is a really helpful learning experience if you are in this boat.
It's similar to how I need to weigh myself to stick to a weight loss plan. People say why not just measure or why not use how your clothes fit? But those things aren't as immediate and for me more feedback is better.
I don't see how worrying about whether some foods really provide fewer calories than the estimate or TEF could help me in the same way (and I know that's so, so don't need to be lectured about it endlessly, I just don't see how it's practically helpful). Perhaps you could clear this up for me so I can understand your point?
This is what I was getting at. What advice, in 3 sentences or less, would give the average person the biggest bang for their weight loss buck so to speak. Because I feel like introducing all these "yeah buts" like TEF, into these discussions when a person will probably truly benefit from the most basic application of CICO, is not helpful.
There's another thread going right now about CICO which also illustrates these points. People naturally want to believe weight loss is difficult and complex, when the basic principles are simple and will have measurable impact for the average person even if implemented with a directionally correct approach. The people who need to worry about optimal precision and accuracy are such a minute percentage of the population, I feel that introducing these caveats into every thread is a distraction and the end result is reinforcing that weight loss is too hard so why even bother trying.
yea, but that is too simplistic …..
we need a five paragraph explanation that lays out how complex it is, even though at the same time figuring out one's TDEE is not that complex...
It's just disappointing because I feel like in the threads where someone inexperienced is genuinely asking for help, those kind of details are the last thing they need to be focusing on. For nutrition debate, fine, have at it. All the charts and decimal driven calculations you want can be trotted out. But in a thread where someone is looking for basic understanding and methods to get them on the right track, those details are a distraction at best and a derail at worst. And most of the time they aren't even accompanied with a helpful suggestion. How is a morbidly obese person supposed to measure and account for TEF anyway?
i was being sarcastic..
and at the end of the day does it really matter that one calorie of this really equals 1.0002 calories of that???
Oh I know. We are in agreement. My comments are directed toward those who continue to post those type of caveats (as was my question posed above which hasn't yet been answered). What advice would @robertw486 or @yarwell provide to someone who is asking for advice that would be helpful and not necessarily distract or discourage them from their efforts?
i guess they would say learn a complex mathematical formula that allows you to break down each calories to truly know its worth …..I mean its not like people have any thing else to do ...
I think the more likely thing that would come from studies like RobertW linked is that eventually the Atwater factors for some foods will be corrected.
That's my assumption too.0 -
Except the diet that would consistently screw it up is uncommon. See, you're thinking any diet with almonds is now off - except you're ignoring my calculating TDEE via feedback. If a person regularly eats almonds, they'd eventually factor that into their TDEE corrections.
Now, do I look forward to the possibility of Atwater corrections allowing labels to be more accurate? Sure. It is also worth noting these corrections usually move calories down as Atwater tends to start with near perfect digestion. So the inaccuracy is really more a problem for people trying to gain weight. No one on MFP has failed to lose weight by adding almonds to their diet.
You're making the same mistake as was made upthread. That being assuming what I think. I'm very capable of speaking for myself, and I'd suggest that assumptions result in strawman arguments that have never been made. I don't think almonds alone are going to affect any diet in a huge way, but scientific studies support that overall dietary composition impacts calorie and nutrition absorbtion.
Here are a whole bunch of the diets that would screw it up. Not at all uncommon. I could easily provide more links to studies of common diets that impact calorie and nutrition absorbtion. As stated upthread, I used an example of a 5% error, but this list includes diets that are not at all uncommon, with error up to much higher percentages.
As for the TDEE, if a person was to falsely inflate their TDEE due to calories never absorbed, it could correct the problem, but would do so in the same way as using a weight scale. If your energy expenditure didn't increase, you would inflate your TDEE without knowing the real cause.
If people are confident that a calorie is a calorie, who is confident enough to remove the feedback loop of the human scale and trust logging inaccuracies for a full year, or maybe two? Anyone?
@WinoGelato
I'd give the information appropriate to the question. In your example, that the calories are most important for a beginner that understands little or nothing of weight loss. I've never suggested that we swamp a basic question with massive information that would confuse them. For a person with no goals other than weight loss, the answer would be much more simple. But most people have some goal that ties macros into the picture at some point. They want a certain body composition or performance goal, not just weight loss.
And @lemurcat12 , I've interjected nothing but science based statements, which to this point not a single person has been able to refute with actual science. The OP made statements that carbs are sugars, and that all sugars are the same. Both are false statements, and in complete context I feel the original statement of "a calorie is a calorie" in terms of energy available is false as well. In simple form, sure it can still be used. But not all questions on this forum are simple. As an example, being you do endurance workouts, would the energy available by fat and protein loading provide the same energy for your routine as would the energy from a better balance higher in carbs?
And thanks to both of you for not disputing points I've never made or implied, but instead asking for clarification. Often the "strawman" arguments made in these threads are attached to people that never made them, suggested them, or implied them.
I'd also suggest that several people are now interjecting their feelings on what information they think is best for a question. And that some seem to support that limited science is the best approach. In terms of a simplistic question, I don't disagree. However, being the purpose of this forum section is to debate nutrition, the simplistic answer is often only a small part of the picture. And from start to finish, the CICO equation is more complex than often stated. Though it might not matter to some people, I'd suggest that in many cases greater amounts of science backed information are good. Often people are answering questions not asked. In this thread I've been told I must be doing something wrong, aimed at weight control apparently. Yet when I came here, I had no concern over weight control. As such people are still trying to correct a problem I've never had.
But the tone of the thread overall seems to be that because some people think that only limited information is the best approach, then all of us must comply with that. If someone can provide a peer reviewed scientific study that proves that only certain "feelz" matter, then I'll get behind that. Until then I'll provide the input that I think is appropriate for the discussion.
And I'll also add that since calorie intake is never allowed to be separated from nutrition intake, macro's and micro's would always be part of the picture. For someone with a goal of only going from grossly obese couch potato to moving some and starting to lose weight, calories only would be fine. But for many people, the overall diet and composition, to include macros, is impacting both their energy levels for particular purposes, as well as weight control.
Since not all potential energy can be used in the same way, the types of fueling and diet go well beyond the simple calorie in real world application. If calories were all indeed the same from an energy standpoint, then macros would not matter. Any set amount of calorie intake would provide the same energy availability to fuel workouts at any intensity level, provide muscle growth and repair, fuel the organs, and control weight to any desired direction or stability.
If people wish to leave their input simple all the time, I've never disputed their right to do so. But I'm not subject to compliance with the feelings of what other posters think is valid information that might be helpful. And I'll have to assume that since not a single science based study has been linked to dispute anything I've added, that people have chosen not to dispute what I've actually stated other than interjecting feelings, which can't be backed by science.
People can limit the spreading of applicable science all they wish. They just can't impose that will on everyone unless forum guidelines prohibit it.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »
Except the diet that would consistently screw it up is uncommon. See, you're thinking any diet with almonds is now off - except you're ignoring my calculating TDEE via feedback. If a person regularly eats almonds, they'd eventually factor that into their TDEE corrections.
Now, do I look forward to the possibility of Atwater corrections allowing labels to be more accurate? Sure. It is also worth noting these corrections usually move calories down as Atwater tends to start with near perfect digestion. So the inaccuracy is really more a problem for people trying to gain weight. No one on MFP has failed to lose weight by adding almonds to their diet.
You're making the same mistake as was made upthread. That being assuming what I think. I'm very capable of speaking for myself, and I'd suggest that assumptions result in strawman arguments that have never been made. I don't think almonds alone are going to affect any diet in a huge way, but scientific studies support that overall dietary composition impacts calorie and nutrition absorbtion.
Here are a whole bunch of the diets that would screw it up. Not at all uncommon. I could easily provide more links to studies of common diets that impact calorie and nutrition absorbtion. As stated upthread, I used an example of a 5% error, but this list includes diets that are not at all uncommon, with error up to much higher percentages.
As for the TDEE, if a person was to falsely inflate their TDEE due to calories never absorbed, it could correct the problem, but would do so in the same way as using a weight scale. If your energy expenditure didn't increase, you would inflate your TDEE without knowing the real cause.
If people are confident that a calorie is a calorie, who is confident enough to remove the feedback loop of the human scale and trust logging inaccuracies for a full year, or maybe two? Anyone?
@WinoGelato
I'd give the information appropriate to the question. In your example, that the calories are most important for a beginner that understands little or nothing of weight loss. I've never suggested that we swamp a basic question with massive information that would confuse them. For a person with no goals other than weight loss, the answer would be much more simple. But most people have some goal that ties macros into the picture at some point. They want a certain body composition or performance goal, not just weight loss.
And @lemurcat12 , I've interjected nothing but science based statements, which to this point not a single person has been able to refute with actual science. The OP made statements that carbs are sugars, and that all sugars are the same. Both are false statements, and in complete context I feel the original statement of "a calorie is a calorie" in terms of energy available is false as well. In simple form, sure it can still be used. But not all questions on this forum are simple. As an example, being you do endurance workouts, would the energy available by fat and protein loading provide the same energy for your routine as would the energy from a better balance higher in carbs?
And thanks to both of you for not disputing points I've never made or implied, but instead asking for clarification. Often the "strawman" arguments made in these threads are attached to people that never made them, suggested them, or implied them.
I'd also suggest that several people are now interjecting their feelings on what information they think is best for a question. And that some seem to support that limited science is the best approach. In terms of a simplistic question, I don't disagree. However, being the purpose of this forum section is to debate nutrition, the simplistic answer is often only a small part of the picture. And from start to finish, the CICO equation is more complex than often stated. Though it might not matter to some people, I'd suggest that in many cases greater amounts of science backed information are good. Often people are answering questions not asked. In this thread I've been told I must be doing something wrong, aimed at weight control apparently. Yet when I came here, I had no concern over weight control. As such people are still trying to correct a problem I've never had.
But the tone of the thread overall seems to be that because some people think that only limited information is the best approach, then all of us must comply with that. If someone can provide a peer reviewed scientific study that proves that only certain "feelz" matter, then I'll get behind that. Until then I'll provide the input that I think is appropriate for the discussion.
And I'll also add that since calorie intake is never allowed to be separated from nutrition intake, macro's and micro's would always be part of the picture. For someone with a goal of only going from grossly obese couch potato to moving some and starting to lose weight, calories only would be fine. But for many people, the overall diet and composition, to include macros, is impacting both their energy levels for particular purposes, as well as weight control.
Since not all potential energy can be used in the same way, the types of fueling and diet go well beyond the simple calorie in real world application. If calories were all indeed the same from an energy standpoint, then macros would not matter. Any set amount of calorie intake would provide the same energy availability to fuel workouts at any intensity level, provide muscle growth and repair, fuel the organs, and control weight to any desired direction or stability.
If people wish to leave their input simple all the time, I've never disputed their right to do so. But I'm not subject to compliance with the feelings of what other posters think is valid information that might be helpful. And I'll have to assume that since not a single science based study has been linked to dispute anything I've added, that people have chosen not to dispute what I've actually stated other than interjecting feelings, which can't be backed by science.
People can limit the spreading of applicable science all they wish. They just can't impose that will on everyone unless forum guidelines prohibit it.
A wall of text does not make it true0 -
A wall of text does not make it true
Agreed. I suggest that if you wish to dispute anything within that wall of text, that you do so using the same standard you often request of others. Do so using peer reviewed scientific studies that dispute the information I have given.
Denial of science or facts presented doesn't invalidate any point, unless you are debating which feelings matter.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »And @lemurcat12 , I've interjected nothing but science based statements, which to this point not a single person has been able to refute with actual science.
Again, since you did not answer, where I'm not following is WHY you think what you've posted is contradictory to what others have posted, why it matters, why it means a calorie is not a calorie.
We all agree that there are factors that affect how many calories your body actually absorbs from the food eaten. I'm still not seeing why this matters. Again, I refer to my post about TEF, and would be interested in a response to it from you.The OP made statements that carbs are sugars, and that all sugars are the same. Both are false statements, and in complete context I feel the original statement of "a calorie is a calorie" in terms of energy available is false as well. In simple form, sure it can still be used. But not all questions on this forum are simple. As an example, being you do endurance workouts, would the energy available by fat and protein loading provide the same energy for your routine as would the energy from a better balance higher in carbs?
No, and I agree that what we eat matters. I don't believe "a calorie is a calorie" is ever intended to mean that food choice does not matter.
From a weight loss (or gain) perspective, the fact that fructose is metabolized differently from glucose doesn't seem particularly relevant. I agree that we get fewer calories actually absorbed from fiber (whether fiber is or is not a carb depends on where one lives, since the US counts it as such but I understand other countries do not). I'm always confused as to whether labels adjust for fiber -- I think they do but perhaps not adequately -- but once again I don't see this as hugely significant for weight loss because it only reduces the number of calories actually absorbed (for weight gain it could be a problem).And I'll also add that since calorie intake is never allowed to be separated from nutrition intake, macro's and micro's would always be part of the picture. For someone with a goal of only going from grossly obese couch potato to moving some and starting to lose weight, calories only would be fine. But for many people, the overall diet and composition, to include macros, is impacting both their energy levels for particular purposes, as well as weight control.
Yes, I think macros and micros matter. I don't think that's inconsistent at all with the statement a calorie is a calorie. I think you are reading something into that statement that is never intended.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »
Except the diet that would consistently screw it up is uncommon. See, you're thinking any diet with almonds is now off - except you're ignoring my calculating TDEE via feedback. If a person regularly eats almonds, they'd eventually factor that into their TDEE corrections.
Now, do I look forward to the possibility of Atwater corrections allowing labels to be more accurate? Sure. It is also worth noting these corrections usually move calories down as Atwater tends to start with near perfect digestion. So the inaccuracy is really more a problem for people trying to gain weight. No one on MFP has failed to lose weight by adding almonds to their diet.
You're making the same mistake as was made upthread. That being assuming what I think. I'm very capable of speaking for myself, and I'd suggest that assumptions result in strawman arguments that have never been made. I don't think almonds alone are going to affect any diet in a huge way, but scientific studies support that overall dietary composition impacts calorie and nutrition absorbtion.
Here are a whole bunch of the diets that would screw it up. Not at all uncommon. I could easily provide more links to studies of common diets that impact calorie and nutrition absorbtion. As stated upthread, I used an example of a 5% error, but this list includes diets that are not at all uncommon, with error up to much higher percentages.
As for the TDEE, if a person was to falsely inflate their TDEE due to calories never absorbed, it could correct the problem, but would do so in the same way as using a weight scale. If your energy expenditure didn't increase, you would inflate your TDEE without knowing the real cause.
If people are confident that a calorie is a calorie, who is confident enough to remove the feedback loop of the human scale and trust logging inaccuracies for a full year, or maybe two? Anyone?
@WinoGelato
I'd give the information appropriate to the question. In your example, that the calories are most important for a beginner that understands little or nothing of weight loss. I've never suggested that we swamp a basic question with massive information that would confuse them. For a person with no goals other than weight loss, the answer would be much more simple. But most people have some goal that ties macros into the picture at some point. They want a certain body composition or performance goal, not just weight loss.
And @lemurcat12 , I've interjected nothing but science based statements, which to this point not a single person has been able to refute with actual science. The OP made statements that carbs are sugars, and that all sugars are the same. Both are false statements, and in complete context I feel the original statement of "a calorie is a calorie" in terms of energy available is false as well. In simple form, sure it can still be used. But not all questions on this forum are simple. As an example, being you do endurance workouts, would the energy available by fat and protein loading provide the same energy for your routine as would the energy from a better balance higher in carbs?
And thanks to both of you for not disputing points I've never made or implied, but instead asking for clarification. Often the "strawman" arguments made in these threads are attached to people that never made them, suggested them, or implied them.
I'd also suggest that several people are now interjecting their feelings on what information they think is best for a question. And that some seem to support that limited science is the best approach. In terms of a simplistic question, I don't disagree. However, being the purpose of this forum section is to debate nutrition, the simplistic answer is often only a small part of the picture. And from start to finish, the CICO equation is more complex than often stated. Though it might not matter to some people, I'd suggest that in many cases greater amounts of science backed information are good. Often people are answering questions not asked. In this thread I've been told I must be doing something wrong, aimed at weight control apparently. Yet when I came here, I had no concern over weight control. As such people are still trying to correct a problem I've never had.
But the tone of the thread overall seems to be that because some people think that only limited information is the best approach, then all of us must comply with that. If someone can provide a peer reviewed scientific study that proves that only certain "feelz" matter, then I'll get behind that. Until then I'll provide the input that I think is appropriate for the discussion.
And I'll also add that since calorie intake is never allowed to be separated from nutrition intake, macro's and micro's would always be part of the picture. For someone with a goal of only going from grossly obese couch potato to moving some and starting to lose weight, calories only would be fine. But for many people, the overall diet and composition, to include macros, is impacting both their energy levels for particular purposes, as well as weight control.
Since not all potential energy can be used in the same way, the types of fueling and diet go well beyond the simple calorie in real world application. If calories were all indeed the same from an energy standpoint, then macros would not matter. Any set amount of calorie intake would provide the same energy availability to fuel workouts at any intensity level, provide muscle growth and repair, fuel the organs, and control weight to any desired direction or stability.
If people wish to leave their input simple all the time, I've never disputed their right to do so. But I'm not subject to compliance with the feelings of what other posters think is valid information that might be helpful. And I'll have to assume that since not a single science based study has been linked to dispute anything I've added, that people have chosen not to dispute what I've actually stated other than interjecting feelings, which can't be backed by science.
People can limit the spreading of applicable science all they wish. They just can't impose that will on everyone unless forum guidelines prohibit it.
So your proof of diets being off by 10% or more is a compilation of studies all except one done before the 2000s? Some going back to 1913? Yeah, I'll agree, the Atwater coefficients from 1913 are probably due for an update, but not because of some then study of what people thought Inuit ate.0 -
It also doesn't respond at all to TDEE back propagation. For it to be a problem with back propagation the diet has to continuously change foods wildly, from large quantities of one off food to another.
And when your response is just to repeat your chart about specific diets instead of addressing my point directly, I am left assuming you're not following. That would be why you actually have the strawman so far. You're addressing your idea of what diets are off, not mine.
In fact, that you're saying to remove the scale means you don't understand how TDEE back propagation works.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »So @robertw486 , I'm not going to quote because there's just too much text. But if you feel that saying "a calorie is a calorie" is an oversimplification based on the data you've shown, what advice would you give to a noob asking "does it matter what I eat for weight loss as long as I'm in a deficit?" A person who asks an oversimplified question like that is not interested in complicated charts and graphs. What advice would you give, in two sentences or less, that would be helpful to someone like that?
This threads isnt about the advice one woulf provide a noobs but rather a semantic debate that all calories are equal when it comes to energy. So i am not sure why its a part of this argument.
That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »So @robertw486 , I'm not going to quote because there's just too much text. But if you feel that saying "a calorie is a calorie" is an oversimplification based on the data you've shown, what advice would you give to a noob asking "does it matter what I eat for weight loss as long as I'm in a deficit?" A person who asks an oversimplified question like that is not interested in complicated charts and graphs. What advice would you give, in two sentences or less, that would be helpful to someone like that?
This threads isnt about the advice one woulf provide a noobs but rather a semantic debate that all calories are equal when it comes to energy. So i am not sure why its a part of this argument.
That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
I think there needs to be a what is debating semantics thread...0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »So @robertw486 , I'm not going to quote because there's just too much text. But if you feel that saying "a calorie is a calorie" is an oversimplification based on the data you've shown, what advice would you give to a noob asking "does it matter what I eat for weight loss as long as I'm in a deficit?" A person who asks an oversimplified question like that is not interested in complicated charts and graphs. What advice would you give, in two sentences or less, that would be helpful to someone like that?
This threads isnt about the advice one woulf provide a noobs but rather a semantic debate that all calories are equal when it comes to energy. So i am not sure why its a part of this argument.
That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
If we are just arguing definitions this would be quite a dull discussion indeed. Isn't the way that we explain a concept to various audiences critical to the debate? There seems to be a school of thought that semantics means "something that doesn't really matter" but to me, semantics is important, not only the definitions and the meanings of the words but how those meanings can be exained in a way to optimize the understanding by a broader audience.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »So @robertw486 , I'm not going to quote because there's just too much text. But if you feel that saying "a calorie is a calorie" is an oversimplification based on the data you've shown, what advice would you give to a noob asking "does it matter what I eat for weight loss as long as I'm in a deficit?" A person who asks an oversimplified question like that is not interested in complicated charts and graphs. What advice would you give, in two sentences or less, that would be helpful to someone like that?
This threads isnt about the advice one woulf provide a noobs but rather a semantic debate that all calories are equal when it comes to energy. So i am not sure why its a part of this argument.
That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
If we are just arguing definitions this would be quite a dull discussion indeed. Isn't the way that we explain a concept to various audiences critical to the debate? There seems to be a school of thought that semantics means "something that doesn't really matter" but to me, semantics is important, not only the definitions and the meanings of the words but how those meanings can be exained in a way to optimize the understanding by a broader audience.
Hence for the connotations (an area of actual semantics) I'd more call this a discussion of terminology, definitions, and methodology. Calling it a semantics debate makes it sound petty, base, and having no practical value.
Honestly, no one has proposed we need a different definition of calorie, or a different word for calories, so it isn't really semantics. If you want a real semantics argument, it would be about why do we call kilocalories calories on food labels in the USA.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
WinoGelato wrote: »So @robertw486 , I'm not going to quote because there's just too much text. But if you feel that saying "a calorie is a calorie" is an oversimplification based on the data you've shown, what advice would you give to a noob asking "does it matter what I eat for weight loss as long as I'm in a deficit?" A person who asks an oversimplified question like that is not interested in complicated charts and graphs. What advice would you give, in two sentences or less, that would be helpful to someone like that?
This threads isnt about the advice one woulf provide a noobs but rather a semantic debate that all calories are equal when it comes to energy. So i am not sure why its a part of this argument.
That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
But Robert's argument doesn't seem to be that calories aren't equal, but that we actually use more or less of the calories depending on the specific food (either because of mislabeling, individual variations, or TEF).0 -
That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Again, since you did not answer, where I'm not following is WHY you think what you've posted is contradictory to what others have posted, why it matters, why it means a calorie is not a calorie.
We all agree that there are factors that affect how many calories your body actually absorbs from the food eaten. I'm still not seeing why this matters. Again, I refer to my post about TEF, and would be interested in a response to it from you.
From an energy availability standpoint, that calorie must be available for use before it can provide energy. This contradicts that all calories are equal for energy, as those never properly digested are never available for use within a persons body. They simply pass through, and release no potential energy into the human involved.
If you post the specific question regarding TEF, I'll be glad to respond. But I've never disagreed that TEF and many other factors are small. The sum of all those factors, along with the various averages used in the Atwater and food labeling methods used, can become much larger.lemurcat12 wrote: »No, and I agree that what we eat matters. I don't believe "a calorie is a calorie" is ever intended to mean that food choice does not matter.
From a weight loss (or gain) perspective, the fact that fructose is metabolized differently from glucose doesn't seem particularly relevant. I agree that we get fewer calories actually absorbed from fiber (whether fiber is or is not a carb depends on where one lives, since the US counts it as such but I understand other countries do not). I'm always confused as to whether labels adjust for fiber -- I think they do but perhaps not adequately -- but once again I don't see this as hugely significant for weight loss because it only reduces the number of calories actually absorbed (for weight gain it could be a problem).
For the sake of discussion, assume all energy is absorbed, and that the labels and methods are exact.
This statement...
....
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
would imply that for your running, the energy available from fat would be exactly the same as the energy available from carbs. After all a calorie is a calorie right? So even though they both have the same potential energy release available, certain forms of that energy within the human system can be useful for many purposes, others useful only for certain purposes. They still remain equal in potential, yet not the same forms of energy.
As for fiber, here's another study that some claim must be a strawman diet and an ancient study, and thus unreliable....
2016-63077ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649.full
I don't think low fat high fiber diets are at all unusual. Quite a few people here on MFP track fiber rather than carbs and shoot for higher levels. Being that the fiber intake also impacts foods eaten with the fiber, it's a common variable that can impact quite a few normal diets that people use on a regular basis.
As for the carbs, it's known that the various carbs ((monosaccharides, disaccharides and starch) have been factored several ways, and it's still disputed as to which one to use. But when comparing Atwater vs NME, those carbs that were all considered the same in energy now have a broader variance in energy that is actually available for human use, to the tune of 15-20% IIRC.
As for why I corrected the statements made by NDJ... well starch isn't a sugar, and it's been proven that in energy availability, not even sugars are really equal. Much closer than the comparison of starch vs sugar, but still several percentage points apart.
If energy available to the human body in all forms were the same then a calorie would be a calorie. But until then, and since we are talking about the human body, they remain different forms of energy, not always suited to the task at hand. As such, in humans, it matters. The only way it doesn't matter is if we remove the human element and burn the food.So your proof of diets being off by 10% or more is a compilation of studies all except one done before the 2000s? Some going back to 1913? Yeah, I'll agree, the Atwater coefficients from 1913 are probably due for an update, but not because of some then study of what people thought Inuit ate.
If you discount any science that remains undisputed, you are still discounting science. Quite a few of those studies, if not all remain undisputed. While I agree that the diet of the Inuit doesn't matter to us here on the forum, diets having to do with diabetics, weight loss, and others listed in the chart are still quite common and valid.
I could provide walls of links to common dietary changes having impact on the Atwater calculations. You can find dozens at a time in the recomp thread, where often energy balance is seemingly defied. Since we know that is not true, if we embrace science we have no choice but to accept that even in lab settings, variations take place that are as of now not completely explained.It also doesn't respond at all to TDEE back propagation. For it to be a problem with back propagation the diet has to continuously change foods wildly, from large quantities of one off food to another.
And when your response is just to repeat your chart about specific diets instead of addressing my point directly, I am left assuming you're not following. That would be why you actually have the strawman so far. You're addressing your idea of what diets are off, not mine.
In fact, that you're saying to remove the scale means you don't understand how TDEE back propagation works.
You gave the example of the almonds, and how you would adjust TDEE to compensate. If you knew the almonds were never available due to not being absorbed, then the energy was never made available. So properly weighed almonds did not in fact increase your TDEE, they proved error in intake vs available energy for a human.
If you have a specific point you would like me to address, I'd prefer to state it rather than assume I can't follow. To this point there is nothing stated in this thread that I can't follow.0 -
It's not a question re TEF, it's comment to those who are arguing that TEF is so significant.lemurcat12 wrote: »The idea here seems to be that 1500 calories is equally filling no matter what the source.
So if it has a higher TEF you get to eat more/be more satisfied.
But since 1500 calories is going to vary in how satisfying it is, in reality, why not just pick the foods that are satisfying. If you aren't losing as you should, go to 1400.
I think the desire to find tricks to cheat the system (obsessing about TEF or the like) is really pointless -- majoring in the minors again. The bigger issue is how do you like to eat. I could have the highest possible TEF if I ate 85% protein and only essential fats or some such, but I'd have a stupid, unhealthy, and unsustainable diet. Increasing protein beyond 30% or so (whatever the grams give you) UNLESS it's for personal satiety or simply because you like the foods you are choosing doesn't make much sense, and doing so because higher TEF doesn't change that.
For the record, this is aimed at Dr. Oz and all the diet gurus who argue that focusing on things like TEF matter, not the most recent poster who referenced Dr. Oz.
(What people mean by negative calorie foods is normally not TEF but the weird idea that foods like celery burn more calories being digested than they contain.)
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Again, since you did not answer, where I'm not following is WHY you think what you've posted is contradictory to what others have posted, why it matters, why it means a calorie is not a calorie.
We all agree that there are factors that affect how many calories your body actually absorbs from the food eaten. I'm still not seeing why this matters. Again, I refer to my post about TEF, and would be interested in a response to it from you.
From an energy availability standpoint, that calorie must be available for use before it can provide energy. This contradicts that all calories are equal for energy, as those never properly digested are never available for use within a persons body. They simply pass through, and release no potential energy into the human involved.
Correct. Calorie information is an estimate and calories may be overstated (never understated).
This doesn't mean that calories that we can access are different, it means there may be some estimates that are off (which is kind of nice, really).
The argument against a calorie is a calorie is different -- it is that calories are more or less fattening depending on where they are from. You can't get fat if you eat healthy foods vs. cheese calories go to the butt or immediately are stored as fat or some such.
That's not the case. Calories are calories. Foods, of course, are different, and one difference is in how accurately their calorie counts are estimated.
But focusing on choosing foods where the calorie count is most likely to be off or protein (because higher TEF) with the idea that you can trick the system makes no sense to me (read my TEF post, which I reposted, for why).lemurcat12 wrote: »No, and I agree that what we eat matters. I don't believe "a calorie is a calorie" is ever intended to mean that food choice does not matter.
From a weight loss (or gain) perspective, the fact that fructose is metabolized differently from glucose doesn't seem particularly relevant. I agree that we get fewer calories actually absorbed from fiber (whether fiber is or is not a carb depends on where one lives, since the US counts it as such but I understand other countries do not). I'm always confused as to whether labels adjust for fiber -- I think they do but perhaps not adequately -- but once again I don't see this as hugely significant for weight loss because it only reduces the number of calories actually absorbed (for weight gain it could be a problem).For the sake of discussion, assume all energy is absorbed, and that the labels and methods are exact.
This statement...
....
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
would imply that for your running, the energy available from fat would be exactly the same as the energy available from carbs. After all a calorie is a calorie right? So even though they both have the same potential energy release available, certain forms of that energy within the human system can be useful for many purposes, others useful only for certain purposes. They still remain equal in potential, yet not the same forms of energy.
No, I disagree with your reading of ndj's post. He's talking about weight gain/loss, not other goals (like fueling workouts or nutrition).
I think increasing fiber because of satiety makes sense. Increasing fiber because you think nutrition labels are off and there's some victory to eating more stated calories doesn't make sense to me.
You seem to be arguing mostly that labels/the USDA information is imperfect and I agree. But again I don't see that as meaning that a calorie (an actual calorie accessed by the body) from cheese is different from one from steak. (Both are poor sources immediately pre race, but that's not about calories either, but about glycogen).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Again, since you did not answer, where I'm not following is WHY you think what you've posted is contradictory to what others have posted, why it matters, why it means a calorie is not a calorie.
We all agree that there are factors that affect how many calories your body actually absorbs from the food eaten. I'm still not seeing why this matters. Again, I refer to my post about TEF, and would be interested in a response to it from you.
From an energy availability standpoint, that calorie must be available for use before it can provide energy. This contradicts that all calories are equal for energy, as those never properly digested are never available for use within a persons body. They simply pass through, and release no potential energy into the human involved.
Correct. Calorie information is an estimate and calories may be overstated (never understated).
This doesn't mean that calories that we can access are different, it means there may be some estimates that are off (which is kind of nice, really).
The argument against a calorie is a calorie is different -- it is that calories are more or less fattening depending on where they are from. You can't get fat if you eat healthy foods vs. cheese calories go to the butt or immediately are stored as fat or some such.
That's not the case. Calories are calories. Foods, of course, are different, and one difference is in how accurately their calorie counts are estimated.
But focusing on choosing foods where the calorie count is most likely to be off or protein (because higher TEF) with the idea that you can trick the system makes no sense to me (read my TEF post, which I reposted, for why).lemurcat12 wrote: »No, and I agree that what we eat matters. I don't believe "a calorie is a calorie" is ever intended to mean that food choice does not matter.
From a weight loss (or gain) perspective, the fact that fructose is metabolized differently from glucose doesn't seem particularly relevant. I agree that we get fewer calories actually absorbed from fiber (whether fiber is or is not a carb depends on where one lives, since the US counts it as such but I understand other countries do not). I'm always confused as to whether labels adjust for fiber -- I think they do but perhaps not adequately -- but once again I don't see this as hugely significant for weight loss because it only reduces the number of calories actually absorbed (for weight gain it could be a problem).For the sake of discussion, assume all energy is absorbed, and that the labels and methods are exact.
This statement...
....
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
would imply that for your running, the energy available from fat would be exactly the same as the energy available from carbs. After all a calorie is a calorie right? So even though they both have the same potential energy release available, certain forms of that energy within the human system can be useful for many purposes, others useful only for certain purposes. They still remain equal in potential, yet not the same forms of energy.
No, I disagree with your reading of ndj's post. He's talking about weight gain/loss, not other goals (like fueling workouts or nutrition).
I think increasing fiber because of satiety makes sense. Increasing fiber because you think nutrition labels are off and there's some victory to eating more stated calories doesn't make sense to me.
You seem to be arguing mostly that labels/the USDA information is imperfect and I agree. But again I don't see that as meaning that a calorie (an actual calorie accessed by the body) from cheese is different from one from steak. (Both are poor sources immediately pre race, but that's not about calories either, but about glycogen).
Calorie counts can also be understated because there's obviously no guarantee that 100g of apple always have 14g of carbs.
But of course, as we pointed out so many times already, the differences just aren't that big and even out with each other and the differences in your CO as they can go either direction.0 -
What do y'all think of this guys experiment? He will be doing an experiment following the opposite principles soon.
http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Correct. Calorie information is an estimate and calories may be overstated (never understated).
This doesn't mean that calories that we can access are different, it means there may be some estimates that are off (which is kind of nice, really).
The argument against a calorie is a calorie is different -- it is that calories are more or less fattening depending on where they are from. You can't get fat if you eat healthy foods vs. cheese calories go to the butt or immediately are stored as fat or some such.
That's not the case. Calories are calories. Foods, of course, are different, and one difference is in how accurately their calorie counts are estimated.
The errors in calorie estimation can go both ways. Based on my food eaten to this time today, my calories on labels/MFP calculations vs Atwater specific tables are underestimated by about 120 calories on my proteins alone. The offset in overestimated carbs might shave 20 or so calories off of that. If the trend continues through the other 900 calories I have to eat today, the estimates will be off by close to 200 calories as compared to the Atwater specific tables.
I'm not sure where you are going with the statement of not getting fat eating healthy foods. You can get fat overeating almost anything assuming you can eat that much of calorie sparse foods.
Calories only come from foods, so to state that calories are calories yet foods are different.... I think I need clarification on your point there.lemurcat12 wrote: »But focusing on choosing foods where the calorie count is most likely to be off or protein (because higher TEF) with the idea that you can trick the system makes no sense to me (read my TEF post, which I reposted, for why).
No, I disagree with your reading of ndj's post. He's talking about weight gain/loss, not other goals (like fueling workouts or nutrition).
I think increasing fiber because of satiety makes sense. Increasing fiber because you think nutrition labels are off and there's some victory to eating more stated calories doesn't make sense to me.
You seem to be arguing mostly that labels/the USDA information is imperfect and I agree. But again I don't see that as meaning that a calorie (an actual calorie accessed by the body) from cheese is different from one from steak. (Both are poor sources immediately pre race, but that's not about calories either, but about glycogen).
Having now seen your TEF comment you wanted me to comment on, as well as the additional above comment, I can agree that the though of eating more protein simply to hope to "cash in" on the TEF factor makes little sense. As far as what people want to eat, how they eat it, anything they consider a "trick", etc... as far as I'm concerned that is their choice.
If the question or comment is directed as me due to assumption I'm looking for some special trick, then the assumption would be incorrect. I eat what I eat, have no issues with moderating all the foods I eat, and only alter my diet on any specific day if there are specific macro or micro needs not addressed for either recovery or prep for a hard upcoming day. I don't even tend to worry about deficit within a day, but view the weight control goals more on a weekly or long term basis.
As for you not being in agreement with how I read NDJ's original post, that's your right to do so. But being that I've quoted the part I'm in disagreement with, and the full original post is still here, I'll just mention that there is no mention at all in the original post about weight control at all.
As for your last comment, if the energy was the same from all foods, that cheese or steak calorie should be just as efficient as fueling your race or training as a simple carb calorie. The OP stated that both provide the same amount of energy. I still disagree with that. The potential energy is the same, but charging the batteries on a hybrid car doesn't also fill the gas tank, nor would filling the gas tank charge the batteries. As humans use differing energy sources in differing ways, it's a very good comparison.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Again, since you did not answer, where I'm not following is WHY you think what you've posted is contradictory to what others have posted, why it matters, why it means a calorie is not a calorie.
We all agree that there are factors that affect how many calories your body actually absorbs from the food eaten. I'm still not seeing why this matters. Again, I refer to my post about TEF, and would be interested in a response to it from you.
From an energy availability standpoint, that calorie must be available for use before it can provide energy. This contradicts that all calories are equal for energy, as those never properly digested are never available for use within a persons body. They simply pass through, and release no potential energy into the human involved.
If you post the specific question regarding TEF, I'll be glad to respond. But I've never disagreed that TEF and many other factors are small. The sum of all those factors, along with the various averages used in the Atwater and food labeling methods used, can become much larger.lemurcat12 wrote: »No, and I agree that what we eat matters. I don't believe "a calorie is a calorie" is ever intended to mean that food choice does not matter.
From a weight loss (or gain) perspective, the fact that fructose is metabolized differently from glucose doesn't seem particularly relevant. I agree that we get fewer calories actually absorbed from fiber (whether fiber is or is not a carb depends on where one lives, since the US counts it as such but I understand other countries do not). I'm always confused as to whether labels adjust for fiber -- I think they do but perhaps not adequately -- but once again I don't see this as hugely significant for weight loss because it only reduces the number of calories actually absorbed (for weight gain it could be a problem).
For the sake of discussion, assume all energy is absorbed, and that the labels and methods are exact.
This statement...
....
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
would imply that for your running, the energy available from fat would be exactly the same as the energy available from carbs. After all a calorie is a calorie right? So even though they both have the same potential energy release available, certain forms of that energy within the human system can be useful for many purposes, others useful only for certain purposes. They still remain equal in potential, yet not the same forms of energy.
As for fiber, here's another study that some claim must be a strawman diet and an ancient study, and thus unreliable....
2016-63077ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649.full
I don't think low fat high fiber diets are at all unusual. Quite a few people here on MFP track fiber rather than carbs and shoot for higher levels. Being that the fiber intake also impacts foods eaten with the fiber, it's a common variable that can impact quite a few normal diets that people use on a regular basis.
As for the carbs, it's known that the various carbs ((monosaccharides, disaccharides and starch) have been factored several ways, and it's still disputed as to which one to use. But when comparing Atwater vs NME, those carbs that were all considered the same in energy now have a broader variance in energy that is actually available for human use, to the tune of 15-20% IIRC.
As for why I corrected the statements made by NDJ... well starch isn't a sugar, and it's been proven that in energy availability, not even sugars are really equal. Much closer than the comparison of starch vs sugar, but still several percentage points apart.
If energy available to the human body in all forms were the same then a calorie would be a calorie. But until then, and since we are talking about the human body, they remain different forms of energy, not always suited to the task at hand. As such, in humans, it matters. The only way it doesn't matter is if we remove the human element and burn the food.So your proof of diets being off by 10% or more is a compilation of studies all except one done before the 2000s? Some going back to 1913? Yeah, I'll agree, the Atwater coefficients from 1913 are probably due for an update, but not because of some then study of what people thought Inuit ate.
If you discount any science that remains undisputed, you are still discounting science. Quite a few of those studies, if not all remain undisputed. While I agree that the diet of the Inuit doesn't matter to us here on the forum, diets having to do with diabetics, weight loss, and others listed in the chart are still quite common and valid.
I could provide walls of links to common dietary changes having impact on the Atwater calculations. You can find dozens at a time in the recomp thread, where often energy balance is seemingly defied. Since we know that is not true, if we embrace science we have no choice but to accept that even in lab settings, variations take place that are as of now not completely explained.It also doesn't respond at all to TDEE back propagation. For it to be a problem with back propagation the diet has to continuously change foods wildly, from large quantities of one off food to another.
And when your response is just to repeat your chart about specific diets instead of addressing my point directly, I am left assuming you're not following. That would be why you actually have the strawman so far. You're addressing your idea of what diets are off, not mine.
In fact, that you're saying to remove the scale means you don't understand how TDEE back propagation works.
You gave the example of the almonds, and how you would adjust TDEE to compensate. If you knew the almonds were never available due to not being absorbed, then the energy was never made available. So properly weighed almonds did not in fact increase your TDEE, they proved error in intake vs available energy for a human.
If you have a specific point you would like me to address, I'd prefer to state it rather than assume I can't follow. To this point there is nothing stated in this thread that I can't follow.
They didn't increase your actual TDEE, but so long as almonds remain a relatively consistent figure in your diet, your TDEE estimation (which is always going to be an estimation outside of living in a metabolic ward) will be corrected for the undigested portion of almonds. You'll eventually have the same deficit or maintenance calories figured out. The whole way involveds weighing yourself with a scale to track weight lost versus predicted weight. The fact that you said why not ditch scales entirely, indicates you didn't follow, because your response was to say "well if the method works, why not throw out a piece of the method". That makes it obvious you don't follow.
Now, when you can actually follow that and explain how a diet is going to consistently, and perpetually screw up that method, without eventually being made up of a diet that constantly fluxes large quantities of what is eaten it in a way designed to break it, I'll gladly believe you actually followed what was said. Otherwise your real argument is actually semantics - you're worried about if calories and TDEE accurately represent actual in or out, but most people looking to lose weight really just care about calculating the difference between the two.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
- 232.5K 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