All calories may not be equal
Replies
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »...in otherwords, if you find a "calorie" that is not equivalent to another "calorie" its because you measured wrong, not because somehow calories don't equal calories.
Its literally like someone saying hey this 7 inch thing is longer than this other 7 inch thing. First thing that should come into your mind is "I guess one of them was measured incorrectly" not "sounds scientific to me"
Once again, stating that if you eat 2,000 calories of donuts everyday for several years, you would weigh exactly the same if you ate a healthy well-balanced diet (which includes donuts now and then) of 2,000 calories for several years. Please.
Who in this thread or any other thread (besides you) is advocating for eating 2,000 calories of donuts every day for several years?
But yes - if we could magically sweep aside the plethora of nutritional/health issues which would stem from such a ridiculous diet (which is entirely another topic because we're speaking purely in terms of weight gain/loss here), you would weigh the same with either diet at the end of that time period. Calories in / Calories out.4 -
It actually kind of sucks when people get so nitpicky and scientific that the conversation becomes unsustainable because it's moved so far from the real world. I agree with the argument that a calorie is a calorie, but using the scientific definition of a calorie to claim the question doesn't make sense willfully ignores the actual content of the question and focuses on semantics so much that it becomes a meaningless argument. Sure, you might win that particular point, but you're not doing anything to move the conversation forward and have narrowed the scope to a point that the original conversation can't even be discussed.
It's kind of like if someone came in here saying "I want to weigh less, will eating less carbs do that?" and someone started arguing with them that they're misusing the word "less" by not specifying what they want to weigh less than and continuing to argue it until the conversation is about the definition of the word "less". Yeah, you may be right from a technical standpoint, but now the conversation is about the definition of "less" and not the actual question.
So true.
In this day and age, having a broader vision of things is not popular. We have tons and tons of informations and facts, and very little understanding and actual knowledge.
1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Why is this thread 19 pages of trying to disprove the facts of chemistry?
Calorie definition: "the energy it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C". Simple as that. The scientific definition does not change base on what we eat. So 200 calories of meat or almonds or cookies or sugar or cake or chocolate chips all provide the exact same amount of energy to our bodies (although technically our food is measure in kilocalories which = 1000 calories). There is no debate on this and there shouldn't be... 200kcals of energy is 200kcals of energy, and it takes the same amount of energy to burn no matter what you eat. Sort of like the "muscle weighs more than fat argument". No, 1 pound of muscle and 1 found of fat and 1 found of feathers equals 1 pound (it's just muscle is more dense so makes you look leaner). If those who eat "clean" for one year lose more weight than those who eat the same amount of calories in junk food, then something else is going on that is not accounted for. And since this is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, there could be so many confounding factors! Like maybe those who ate junk food underestimated what they were eating (which is easy to do because it takes less food to reach 1000 calories of "junk" food than it will take for "clean" food). Or maybe those who ate "cleaner" were also more likely to exercise more often. This thread is hilarious because we are trying to prove a fact of chemistry that has been accepted by science since 1842.1 -
To prove that density exists.pianoplaya94 wrote: »Why is this thread 19 pages of trying to disprove the facts of chemistry?
Calorie definition: "the energy it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C". Simple as that. The scientific definition does not change base on what we eat. So 200 calories of meat or almonds or cookies or sugar or cake or chocolate chips all provide the exact same amount of energy to our bodies (although technically our food is measure in kilocalories which = 1000 calories). There is no debate on this and there shouldn't be... 200kcals of energy is 200kcals of energy, and it takes the same amount of energy to burn no matter what you eat. Sort of like the "muscle weighs more than fat argument". No, 1 pound of muscle and 1 found of fat and 1 found of feathers equals 1 pound (it's just muscle is more dense so makes you look leaner). If those who eat "clean" for one year lose more weight than those who eat the same amount of calories in junk food, then something else is going on that is not accounted for. And since this is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, there could be so many confounding factors! Like maybe those who ate junk food underestimated what they were eating (which is easy to do because it takes less food to reach 1000 calories of "junk" food than it will take for "clean" food). Or maybe those who ate "cleaner" were also more likely to exercise more often. This thread is hilarious because we are trying to prove a fact of chemistry that has been accepted by science since 1842.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yep, you got it.BreezeDoveal wrote: »
To prove that density exists.pianoplaya94 wrote: »Why is this thread 19 pages of trying to disprove the facts of chemistry?
Calorie definition: "the energy it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C". Simple as that. The scientific definition does not change base on what we eat. So 200 calories of meat or almonds or cookies or sugar or cake or chocolate chips all provide the exact same amount of energy to our bodies (although technically our food is measure in kilocalories which = 1000 calories). There is no debate on this and there shouldn't be... 200kcals of energy is 200kcals of energy, and it takes the same amount of energy to burn no matter what you eat. Sort of like the "muscle weighs more than fat argument". No, 1 pound of muscle and 1 found of fat and 1 found of feathers equals 1 pound (it's just muscle is more dense so makes you look leaner). If those who eat "clean" for one year lose more weight than those who eat the same amount of calories in junk food, then something else is going on that is not accounted for. And since this is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, there could be so many confounding factors! Like maybe those who ate junk food underestimated what they were eating (which is easy to do because it takes less food to reach 1000 calories of "junk" food than it will take for "clean" food). Or maybe those who ate "cleaner" were also more likely to exercise more often. This thread is hilarious because we are trying to prove a fact of chemistry that has been accepted by science since 1842.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
No, density is why a pound of muscle weighs more.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
It actually kind of sucks when people get so nitpicky and scientific that the conversation becomes unsustainable because it's moved so far from the real world. I agree with the argument that a calorie is a calorie, but using the scientific definition of a calorie to claim the question doesn't make sense willfully ignores the actual content of the question and focuses on semantics so much that it becomes a meaningless argument. Sure, you might win that particular point, but you're not doing anything to move the conversation forward and have narrowed the scope to a point that the original conversation can't even be discussed.
It's kind of like if someone came in here saying "I want to weigh less, will eating less carbs do that?" and someone started arguing with them that they're misusing the word "less" by not specifying what they want to weigh less than and continuing to argue it until the conversation is about the definition of the word "less". Yeah, you may be right from a technical standpoint, but now the conversation is about the definition of "less" and not the actual question.
Agreed.
I think no one disagrees that nutrition is important to your overall health and through your health your weight and calories and nutrition aren't equivalent so yes 100 calories of donuts is not nutritionally equivalent to 100 calories of broccoli. That said reducing that statement to "not all calories are equal" is at best overly vague and at worst just plain wrong.2 -
I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to track calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
3 -
I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.1 -
It actually kind of sucks when people get so nitpicky and scientific that the conversation becomes unsustainable because it's moved so far from the real world. I agree with the argument that a calorie is a calorie, but using the scientific definition of a calorie to claim the question doesn't make sense willfully ignores the actual content of the question and focuses on semantics so much that it becomes a meaningless argument. Sure, you might win that particular point, but you're not doing anything to move the conversation forward and have narrowed the scope to a point that the original conversation can't even be discussed.
It's kind of like if someone came in here saying "I want to weigh less, will eating less carbs do that?" and someone started arguing with them that they're misusing the word "less" by not specifying what they want to weigh less than and continuing to argue it until the conversation is about the definition of the word "less". Yeah, you may be right from a technical standpoint, but now the conversation is about the definition of "less" and not the actual question.
I actually see it as something of the opposite.
People who say "ah ha! a calorie is NOT a calorie because broccoli is different from cake" are being willfully obtuse and arguing a strawman, because of course no one has ever said that broccoli is the same as cake (or that foods are foods for all purposes). It's an intentional misunderstanding of what people who say "a calorie is a calorie" mean, which is why they are in their rights to point out that a calorie is a unit of energy.
Most of this IS people talking past each other, but I think mainly due to this willful misrepresentation or intentional misunderstanding by those claiming that calories are different. That's why I always try to explain nicely that I don't think it's helpful to use "a calorie" as a synonym for food or to pretend like the body recognizes "broccoli calories" as such. You'd think the clarification would be helpful and allow for further discussion, not be taken as some kind of hypertechnicality. If the person thinks there's actually a disagreement once their misrepresentation (no, no one thinks it's good to live on cake alone) is cleared up, I'd love to hear about it.5 -
Isabelle_1929 wrote: »It actually kind of sucks when people get so nitpicky and scientific that the conversation becomes unsustainable because it's moved so far from the real world. I agree with the argument that a calorie is a calorie, but using the scientific definition of a calorie to claim the question doesn't make sense willfully ignores the actual content of the question and focuses on semantics so much that it becomes a meaningless argument. Sure, you might win that particular point, but you're not doing anything to move the conversation forward and have narrowed the scope to a point that the original conversation can't even be discussed.
It's kind of like if someone came in here saying "I want to weigh less, will eating less carbs do that?" and someone started arguing with them that they're misusing the word "less" by not specifying what they want to weigh less than and continuing to argue it until the conversation is about the definition of the word "less". Yeah, you may be right from a technical standpoint, but now the conversation is about the definition of "less" and not the actual question.
So true.
In this day and age, having a broader vision of things is not popular. We have tons and tons of informations and facts, and very little understanding and actual knowledge.
I'm curious who in this discussion you are claiming lacks a broader vision of things?
What I find frustrating (again) is that those of us saying a calorie is a calorie aren't saying merely that. We are saying that calories are what matter for weight loss, and that needs to be a starting point, but of course things like nutrition, satiety, personal preference, etc. matter too. In saying "no, you are wrong, a calorie is not a calorie because broccoli is not cake," people are willfully ignoring most of what we say and suggesting, falsely, that the acknowledgement that calories are what matter for weight loss means that you don't also care about these other things.
When someone (like low carb extremists) insist that Americans are fat because "carbs" or (for people of other views) "processed foods" or what not, I might disagree, but not because I don't care about nutrition or think what we eat matters. I just don't think that we all do better on the same diet or macro ratios or that simplistic solutions like those often given (eat 6 meal/day, never skip breakfast, shop the perimeter, don't eat added sugar EVER, whatever) fit for everyone. The psychological things are going to differ for everyone. For example, some go on and on about how people overeat because they are allegedly starving and must eat a certain way to lose. But I was never overeating because of hunger (and I ate a pretty healthful diet, just too much), and I wasn't hungry even on 1250. People are different. Ludwig's theories would suggest that we should avoid potatoes, if memory serves, but potatoes are quite satiating for many. Hyman was quoted as saying that we can't put on fat from fat, but let me keep everything the same but sub french fries for roasted potatoes (same calories from the potatoes) and if that added fat kicks me over maintenance I will put on fat. And no, from experience, I won't be so satiated from the fat in the fries that I spontaneously eat less.5 -
This is the link from when I was tracking our progress with this diet in case anyone is interested. The results were better thAn we had anticipated.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10360039/supporting-spouse-in-diet0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
You can change your diet and end up eating too much anyway. I've seen this happen to people doing paleo and think it would have happened to me if I'd stayed with paleo and not also logged/watched portions or the like.
Lots of people here lost without meaningfully changing their diet. Mine was pretty good -- I changed it in that I eliminated most snacking, but the fundamentals aren't the same. You shouldn't assume things about other people's diets. (I was never hungry even on 1250 either -- hunger isn't my issue usually.)
Most significantly, anyone who cuts calories without consideration of satiety or doesn't react to being consistently hungry by changing up your diet isn't acting sensibly. I think most of us do this, and don't need to follow a special program to figure out how. IMO, that -- and understanding the basics of eating a nutritious diet -- is a basic life skill, not something one needs a special program or plan to follow in order to do.
Plus, there's nothing about calorie counting that would preclude you from doing that -- that's the claim that bothers me most. Some people don't care about nutrition. Personally, I do -- did even when I was putting on weight -- and so I counted and focused on eating a healthful diet when losing. But changing how much (as in calories) I ate was a necessary change.4 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.
Non sense. Low fat does not =/= low satiety. Protein + fiber have the greatest satiety, and then starches. Going from eating junk food to eating whole quality food is what made the difference. The person husband stopped eating highly calorie, high carb, high fat, high sodium foods and something more reasonable. It's the quality of food that change, which drove a reduction in calories. Many of us do the same thing with whole grains, oats, quinoa and bunch of other carb items.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It actually kind of sucks when people get so nitpicky and scientific that the conversation becomes unsustainable because it's moved so far from the real world. I agree with the argument that a calorie is a calorie, but using the scientific definition of a calorie to claim the question doesn't make sense willfully ignores the actual content of the question and focuses on semantics so much that it becomes a meaningless argument. Sure, you might win that particular point, but you're not doing anything to move the conversation forward and have narrowed the scope to a point that the original conversation can't even be discussed.
It's kind of like if someone came in here saying "I want to weigh less, will eating less carbs do that?" and someone started arguing with them that they're misusing the word "less" by not specifying what they want to weigh less than and continuing to argue it until the conversation is about the definition of the word "less". Yeah, you may be right from a technical standpoint, but now the conversation is about the definition of "less" and not the actual question.
I actually see it as something of the opposite.
People who say "ah ha! a calorie is NOT a calorie because broccoli is different from cake" are being willfully obtuse and arguing a strawman, because of course no one has ever said that broccoli is the same as cake (or that foods are foods for all purposes). It's an intentional misunderstanding of what people who say "a calorie is a calorie" mean, which is why they are in their rights to point out that a calorie is a unit of energy.
Most of this IS people talking past each other, but I think mainly due to this willful misrepresentation or intentional misunderstanding by those claiming that calories are different. That's why I always try to explain nicely that I don't think it's helpful to use "a calorie" as a synonym for food or to pretend like the body recognizes "broccoli calories" as such. You'd think the clarification would be helpful and allow for further discussion, not be taken as some kind of hypertechnicality. If the person thinks there's actually a disagreement once their misrepresentation (no, no one thinks it's good to live on cake alone) is cleared up, I'd love to hear about it.
For the record this criticism was criticism of where the conversation had headed in the last page, not the overall argument - there were a lot of separate posts that all talked about the technical definition of calorie as proof that a calorie is a calorie, ignoring the meaning behind the phrase and positioning that argument as "proof" that the OP was wrong. In my previous post I had gone back and re-read the last few pages specifically for the names saying it, and it wasn't any of your posts/opinions.
I feel the same way about the "muscle is heavier than fat" truthers upthread - you know what they mean! You're technically correct but not contributing anything to the discussion by arguing semantics!
I was in the middle of trying to write out a "both sides are misrepresenting" response but on further thought I think you're right - I can't think of a single way people are misrepresenting the "all calories are not equal for weight loss" people's arguments but the other side is continually having to defend that the nutrition of different foods are not equal, just their effect on weight loss, even though that's been established long before this thread. Circles!1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.
Non sense. Low fat does not =/= low satiety. Protein + fiber have the greatest satiety, and then starches. Going from eating junk food to eating whole quality food is what made the difference. The person husband stopped eating highly calorie, high carb, high fat, high sodium foods and something more reasonable. It's the quality of food that change, which drove a reduction in calories. Many of us do the same thing with whole grains, oats, quinoa and bunch of other carb items.
Sounds like your a whole-food vegan. Good for you. But her husband (and 98% of Americans) will never be vegans. So you do the alternative healthy option for many (not all) because of satiety - high fat, low sugar, low grain.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
BreezeDoveal wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.
Non sense. Low fat does not =/= low satiety. Protein + fiber have the greatest satiety, and then starches. Going from eating junk food to eating whole quality food is what made the difference. The person husband stopped eating highly calorie, high carb, high fat, high sodium foods and something more reasonable. It's the quality of food that change, which drove a reduction in calories. Many of us do the same thing with whole grains, oats, quinoa and bunch of other carb items.
"Protein + fiber "
Sounds like your a whole-food vegan. Good for you. But her husband (and 98% of Americans) will never be vegans. So you do the alternative healthy option for many (not all) because of satiety - high fat, low sugar, low grain.
Yup, sounds right.
Never understood the vegan thing. I do understand not wanting to kill animals for food and have no problem with that philosophy.
But if you won't eat an egg from your neighbor's happy and healthy backyard chickens just a few times a year, it becomes a religion. And please vegans, don't give me a cholesterol lecture.0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.
Non sense. Low fat does not =/= low satiety. Protein + fiber have the greatest satiety, and then starches. Going from eating junk food to eating whole quality food is what made the difference. The person husband stopped eating highly calorie, high carb, high fat, high sodium foods and something more reasonable. It's the quality of food that change, which drove a reduction in calories. Many of us do the same thing with whole grains, oats, quinoa and bunch of other carb items.
Sounds like your a whole-food vegan. Good for you. But her husband (and 98% of Americans) will never be vegans. So you do the alternative healthy option for many (not all) because of satiety - high fat, low sugar, low grain.
I agree with psulemon, and I'm certainly not a whole foods vegan, and I'm pretty sure he's not either.
High fat is not especially satiating for the average person (for some, sure), and the SAD is considered on the high fat side, even though it's not at HFLC levels. The SAD may not be satiating (although I don't actually think that's why most overeat, I think it's hedonic eating), but that's because it's woefully low in things like vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grains, that potatoes are typically eaten in fry or chip form (fine in moderation, but not the most satiating version), that subsets of the population drink tons of sugary soda and the like (not satiating at all), and that meat on average tends to be higher fat version. We also eat lots of cheese (which I personally do love immoderately).2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.
Non sense. Low fat does not =/= low satiety. Protein + fiber have the greatest satiety, and then starches. Going from eating junk food to eating whole quality food is what made the difference. The person husband stopped eating highly calorie, high carb, high fat, high sodium foods and something more reasonable. It's the quality of food that change, which drove a reduction in calories. Many of us do the same thing with whole grains, oats, quinoa and bunch of other carb items.
Sounds like your a whole-food vegan. Good for you. But her husband (and 98% of Americans) will never be vegans. So you do the alternative healthy option for many (not all) because of satiety - high fat, low sugar, low grain.
You can get plenty of protein and fiber without being a whole-food vegan. I'm not sure why you would jump to the conclusion that one must eliminate animal products or non-whole foods in order to get sufficient protein and fiber.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.
Non sense. Low fat does not =/= low satiety. Protein + fiber have the greatest satiety, and then starches. Going from eating junk food to eating whole quality food is what made the difference. The person husband stopped eating highly calorie, high carb, high fat, high sodium foods and something more reasonable. It's the quality of food that change, which drove a reduction in calories. Many of us do the same thing with whole grains, oats, quinoa and bunch of other carb items.
Sounds like your a whole-food vegan. Good for you. But her husband (and 98% of Americans) will never be vegans. So you do the alternative healthy option for many (not all) because of satiety - high fat, low sugar, low grain.
I agree with psulemon, and I'm certainly not a whole foods vegan, and I'm pretty sure he's not either.
High fat is not especially satiating for the average person (for some, sure), and the SAD is considered on the high fat side, even though it's not at HFLC levels. The SAD may not be satiating (although I don't actually think that's why most overeat, I think it's hedonic eating), but that's because it's woefully low in things like vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grains, that potatoes are typically eaten in fry or chip form (fine in moderation, but not the most satiating version), that subsets of the population drink tons of sugary soda and the like (not satiating at all), and that meat on average tends to be higher fat version. We also eat lots of cheese (which I personally do love immoderately).
This x1000.
And a quick peek into lemon's diary confirms that he's definitely not a whole foods vegan. I laughed pretty hard at that assumption.3 -
Isabelle_1929 wrote: »
Better in the sense that you just proved his point, that you don't know what CICO is?
Yes.
It simply refers to a (set of) math equation(s). It's not a diet in any sense of the word.2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.
Non sense. Low fat does not =/= low satiety. Protein + fiber have the greatest satiety, and then starches. Going from eating junk food to eating whole quality food is what made the difference. The person husband stopped eating highly calorie, high carb, high fat, high sodium foods and something more reasonable. It's the quality of food that change, which drove a reduction in calories. Many of us do the same thing with whole grains, oats, quinoa and bunch of other carb items.
"Protein + fiber "
Sounds like your a whole-food vegan. Good for you. But her husband (and 98% of Americans) will never be vegans. So you do the alternative healthy option for many (not all) because of satiety - high fat, low sugar, low grain.
Yup, sounds right.
Never understood the vegan thing. I do understand not wanting to kill animals for food and have no problem with that philosophy.
But if you won't eat an egg from your neighbor's happy and healthy backyard chickens just a few times a year, it becomes a religion. And please vegans, don't give me a cholesterol lecture.
My decision to avoid eggs from backyard chickens has nothing to do with religion -- it's a consistent position on animal exploitation. Backyard chickens actually form a significant part of the rescue chicken population and many of them are killed when the people who own them are no longer able to care for them. Even if one does make a commitment to care for chickens for their entire life (that is, not killing them when their production rate declines), there are no sources for chicks of which I am aware that don't participate in practices to which I am opposed (chick culling, using chickens for meat, and selling chicks to people who prioritize profit over the welfare of the chickens) so I wouldn't want to be a part of that process by eating eggs from backyard chickens.
Even happy and healthy backyard chickens were treated as product at some point in their life -- although the person who is presently caring for them may have their welfare as a primary concern, I avoid eggs as part of an objection to the overall chick/chicken industry.
If you don't understand why someone does something, sometimes asking will help you to find out. It may be easier to dismiss something as a religion before seeking to understand it, but it doesn't lead to greater clarity. This is my choice of what I feel comfortable supporting with my own actions, I realize other people may feel differently.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.
Non sense. Low fat does not =/= low satiety. Protein + fiber have the greatest satiety, and then starches. Going from eating junk food to eating whole quality food is what made the difference. The person husband stopped eating highly calorie, high carb, high fat, high sodium foods and something more reasonable. It's the quality of food that change, which drove a reduction in calories. Many of us do the same thing with whole grains, oats, quinoa and bunch of other carb items.
Sounds like your a whole-food vegan. Good for you. But her husband (and 98% of Americans) will never be vegans. So you do the alternative healthy option for many (not all) because of satiety - high fat, low sugar, low grain.
You can get plenty of protein and fiber without being a whole-food vegan. I'm not sure why you would jump to the conclusion that one must eliminate animal products or non-whole foods in order to get sufficient protein and fiber.
Yep! The best thing I did to help me stick to my calories was to add more veggies, more lean chicken and fish, more 2% greek yogurt, and some protein powder. I already had plenty of fat in my diet previously, it was the extra protein and fiber that made the difference. And my diet would make a vegan cry
0 -
Just to make sure I'm following this thread -
We've discovered that some still can't grasp basic facts and think they are special( or their kids or husbands are special) and these lost few are the first to post replies trying to help newcomers( blind leading the blind)
And that psulemon is now a whole foods vegan.
Seems legit.
Never change mfp.6 -
Is that Lionel Richie?3
-
mskessler89 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.
Non sense. Low fat does not =/= low satiety. Protein + fiber have the greatest satiety, and then starches. Going from eating junk food to eating whole quality food is what made the difference. The person husband stopped eating highly calorie, high carb, high fat, high sodium foods and something more reasonable. It's the quality of food that change, which drove a reduction in calories. Many of us do the same thing with whole grains, oats, quinoa and bunch of other carb items.
Sounds like your a whole-food vegan. Good for you. But her husband (and 98% of Americans) will never be vegans. So you do the alternative healthy option for many (not all) because of satiety - high fat, low sugar, low grain.
I agree with psulemon, and I'm certainly not a whole foods vegan, and I'm pretty sure he's not either.
High fat is not especially satiating for the average person (for some, sure), and the SAD is considered on the high fat side, even though it's not at HFLC levels. The SAD may not be satiating (although I don't actually think that's why most overeat, I think it's hedonic eating), but that's because it's woefully low in things like vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grains, that potatoes are typically eaten in fry or chip form (fine in moderation, but not the most satiating version), that subsets of the population drink tons of sugary soda and the like (not satiating at all), and that meat on average tends to be higher fat version. We also eat lots of cheese (which I personally do love immoderately).
This x1000.
And a quick peek into lemon's diary confirms that he's definitely not a whole foods vegan. I laughed pretty hard at that assumption.
I am certainly not a vegan nor will I ever become one. Meat is a huge part of my diet.2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »The name of this thread is "all calories may not be equal."
This is what Dr. Mark Hyman has to say. He is chairman of The Institute for Functional Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
"The truth is there are good and bad calories. And that’s because this involves more than a simple math equation. If you eat the same amount of calories in kale or gummy bears, do they do the same thing to your body? No!
When we eat, our food interacts with our biology, which is a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite. Every bite affects your hormones, brain chemistry and metabolism. Sugar calories cause fat storage and spikes hunger. Protein and fat calories promote fat burning.
What counts even more than the quantity of calories are the quality of the calories."
Quantity of calories is definitely more important than quality in terms of weight loss, but that doesn't mean that quality doesn't matter; it certain does matter and plays a huge role in satiety and sustaining a weight loss strategy. Even if you eat perfect quality nutrients, you can still gain weight.
Dr. Hyman's argument is a bit obtuse because it would not occur in any environment. If you ate only kale, you would have a fat and protein deficiency. Same thing would happen with only gummy bears.
Also, sugar (carbohydrates) are less likely to store as fat, as compared to dietary fat through de nova lipogenesis. Below is some good information if you are interested in reading more about it.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/6/707.full
So in case you don't realize it, there are several hormones that inhibit lipolysis (fat burning) and induce lipogenesis (fat storage). When your body starts to break down carbs into glucose, your pancreas will release insulin as a means to regulate blood sugar. As insulin comes into your system, your body releases the enzyme lipoportein lipase (LPL); subsequently, it will also suppress Hormone Sensitive Lipase (HSL) which is your fat burning hormone. Due to this, people assume that insulin is bad because the thought process is: Carbs -->Insulin--> Suppressed fat oxidation --> Oh No!!!
Side note: Protein is also an insulinogenic.
What a lot of people don't realize, because it's not as discussed currently are the other hormones that suppress HSL and put our bodies into Lipogenesis. When you eat large amounts of fat, your body will release the enzyme Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASP). This enzyme also suppresses HSL, which in turn causes your body to go into lipogenesis.
When a person eats both fats and carbs, your body has a third hormone that will suppress HSL; that is called Glucose-dependent Insulinthropic Peptide (GIP).
The TL:DR verision of this: We are all screwed. Our body are fat storing machines.
Just going to bump this response to further the discussion.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions