All calories may not be equal
Replies
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »"Why isn't it science? "
Saying a calorie isn't always a calorie is like saying a meter isn't always a meter or a pound isn't always a pound. They are units of measurement, by definition they are equivalent in all cases. It is a silly nonsensical statement.
Ultimately it is what the body does with those calories in. I do think that people's burn rates are faster or slower from one person to the next depending on current fitness level, height, etc. I have read that certain people are even more efficient at extracting more calories from fibrous vegetables and fruits than others!
Some others might not even be digesting all the calories which pass through the digestive system or are passing food through. There are also age, health/disease , hormones, biochemistry, and genetics, etc at play as variables regarding weight loss rates.
Where did you read that certain people are more efficient at extracting more calories from fibrous vegetables and fruits than others? I'd like to see that/those source(s).
The only extreme variable hindering weight loss is if you have a medical issue that needs attention, in which case the doctor needs to see you. Other than that, it's a given that there are other variables at play, but it does not negate the fact that a calorie is a calorie as to weight loss.
1 -
BreezeDoveal wrote: »
Exactly, as they're not digesting those calories and getting that nutrition, that could be leading to them gaining weight. They may need to improve their gut health first to lose weight.Aaron_K123 wrote: »"Why isn't it science? "
Saying a calorie isn't always a calorie is like saying a meter isn't always a meter or a pound isn't always a pound. They are units of measurement, by definition they are equivalent in all cases. It is a silly nonsensical statement.
Ultimately it is what the body does with those calories in. I do think that people's burn rates are faster or slower from one person to the next depending on current fitness level, height, etc. I have read that certain people are even more efficient at extracting more calories from fibrous vegetables and fruits than others!
Some others might not even be digesting all the calories which pass through the digestive system or are passing food through. There are also age, health/disease , hormones, biochemistry, and genetics, etc at play as variables regarding weight loss rates.
No....not exactly at all.
They need to eat less calories to lose weight, then go to the doctor for a malfunctioning gut.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
BreezeDoveal wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »
Exactly, as they're not digesting those calories and getting that nutrition, that could be leading to them gaining weight. They may need to improve their gut health first to lose weight.Aaron_K123 wrote: »"Why isn't it science? "
Saying a calorie isn't always a calorie is like saying a meter isn't always a meter or a pound isn't always a pound. They are units of measurement, by definition they are equivalent in all cases. It is a silly nonsensical statement.
Ultimately it is what the body does with those calories in. I do think that people's burn rates are faster or slower from one person to the next depending on current fitness level, height, etc. I have read that certain people are even more efficient at extracting more calories from fibrous vegetables and fruits than others!
Some others might not even be digesting all the calories which pass through the digestive system or are passing food through. There are also age, health/disease , hormones, biochemistry, and genetics, etc at play as variables regarding weight loss rates.
No, this is silly.
They need to eat less calories to lose weight, then go to the doctor for a malfunctioning gut.
Well of course you should see a good naturopath for gut health issues, but I'd think a low calorie diet would just starve all your good bacteria even more.
Low fat or low fiber?0 -
Isabelle_1929 wrote: »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.
Do you like science?
Tell me: did you read everything that I wrote + the comments I was replying to, the whole in the context of the thread's topic, i.e. the question posted by OP ?
Did you?
As an engineer, I love science.
Yes, I did read the entire thread.
From all of that, it is quite easy to see that you don't understand what CICO is, as has been pointed out and explained to you.4 -
BreezeDoveal wrote: »
Exactly, as they're not digesting those calories and getting that nutrition, that could be leading to them gaining weight. They may need to improve their gut health first to lose weight.Aaron_K123 wrote: »"Why isn't it science? "
Saying a calorie isn't always a calorie is like saying a meter isn't always a meter or a pound isn't always a pound. They are units of measurement, by definition they are equivalent in all cases. It is a silly nonsensical statement.
Ultimately it is what the body does with those calories in. I do think that people's burn rates are faster or slower from one person to the next depending on current fitness level, height, etc. I have read that certain people are even more efficient at extracting more calories from fibrous vegetables and fruits than others!
Some others might not even be digesting all the calories which pass through the digestive system or are passing food through. There are also age, health/disease , hormones, biochemistry, and genetics, etc at play as variables regarding weight loss rates.
No....not exactly at all.
They need to eat less calories to lose weight, then go to the doctor for a malfunctioning gut.
It helps to read @BreezeDoveal's posts in the same mindset as you would watch Monty Python. Expecting a twisted interpretation of reality.
What he was pointing out in his usual way was that if someone's not digesting food properly, they wouldn't be gaining weight because of that - they'd be absorbing fewer calories than they thought they were. Not more.
Plus, of course, they should head to the doc pronto.3 -
queenliz99 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »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."
Kale has thallium and tastes like grass and gummy bears have sugar and are delicious. Hard to decide which one is better.
http://www.snopes.com/kale-not-safe/
... A "2006 study out of the Czech Republic showing how the 'cruciferous' family of vegetables behave as 'hyperaccumulators' of thallium" is the singular mention of any scientifically indicated link between one idea and the other, but that study involved "cruciferous vegetables" (of which kale is one of many) and their potential to accumulate heavy metals. Even if cruciferous veggies were proved to be heavy metal "hyperaccumulators," that wouldn't serve as an indictment of kale alone as an exceptional risk among them.
I was looking for an excuse not to eat kale, damn! Not helpful
I just had a bunch of chopped fresh kale in my chicKen soup today.
Kale's really good in soup. I like it lots of ways, but that's probably my favorite.2 -
BreezeDoveal wrote: »
Exactly, as they're not digesting those calories and getting that nutrition, that could be leading to them gaining weight. They may need to improve their gut health first to lose weight.Aaron_K123 wrote: »"Why isn't it science? "
Saying a calorie isn't always a calorie is like saying a meter isn't always a meter or a pound isn't always a pound. They are units of measurement, by definition they are equivalent in all cases. It is a silly nonsensical statement.
Ultimately it is what the body does with those calories in. I do think that people's burn rates are faster or slower from one person to the next depending on current fitness level, height, etc. I have read that certain people are even more efficient at extracting more calories from fibrous vegetables and fruits than others!
Some others might not even be digesting all the calories which pass through the digestive system or are passing food through. There are also age, health/disease , hormones, biochemistry, and genetics, etc at play as variables regarding weight loss rates.
Deep. Almost (but not quite) insightful. Keep trying.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »"Why isn't it science? "
Saying a calorie isn't always a calorie is like saying a meter isn't always a meter or a pound isn't always a pound. They are units of measurement, by definition they are equivalent in all cases. It is a silly nonsensical statement.
Ultimately it is what the body does with those calories in. I do think that people's burn rates are faster or slower from one person to the next depending on current fitness level, height, etc. I have read that certain people are even more efficient at extracting more calories from fibrous vegetables and fruits than others!
Some others might not even be digesting all the calories which pass through the digestive system or are passing food through. There are also age, health/disease , hormones, biochemistry, and genetics, etc at play as variables regarding weight loss rates.
Where did you read that certain people are more efficient at extracting more calories from fibrous vegetables and fruits than others? I'd like to see that/those source(s).
My understanding is that some are less efficient, but what that means is that they should have a HARDER time gaining weight (and might have a problem with absorbing enough nutrients if it is too extreme).
There are imprecisions in measuring calories and individual differences in absorption and, of course, slight differences in how many calories are absorbed depending on method of preparation and TEF, but ultimately NONE of these would prevent CICO from working or mean that anyone gained weight without eating more than they burned, so they always seem like irrelevancies to me. Not losing? Eat less. Hungry on what you are eating? Change the diet to eat more satiating foods. Common sense, but not arguments against CICO.1 -
And you know this for sure? I've dealt with over 500 type II diabetics in my profession and the majority of them didn't need to cut carbs of existence in their diet to lose weight. REDUCE yes. And not down to 50g or less either. Many were well over 100g a day.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.
Tell that to the many of type II clients I've had that didn't have to cut out "bad" foods and because of just significant weight loss, they were able to do the same.
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.
Can someone do it on Ludwig's program? Sure. Do they NEED to? NOPE.
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
Even Ludwig doesn't cut carbs out of existence. In Phase 1, you're allowed beans, fruit, and full fat dairy, which has some carbs. I don't think he has people at 50 g, more like 75-100. However grains aren't allowed until Phase 2. Perhaps you've had success with some of your Type 2 diabetics losing eating grains. However, in my husband's case, eating grains set him up for a day of cravings and uncontrolled hunger. There's the physiological aspect of our response to food, but also the psychological response; Ludwig and others have talked of many people's relationship to carb and sugar loaded processed foods as addiction. Not all of us have it. I can eat that bagel and be fine until lunch. My husband would be reaching for several donuts by 10 AM. He admits this readily, and has several family members with either diabetes or addiction disorders. Ludwig's book completely changed his awareness and understanding of his relationship with food.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
BreezeDoveal wrote: »hamilton8560 wrote: »Calories in and calories out is a limited tool to describe how foods are affecting your body. Understanding the endocrine system and how foods impact it at different times of the day is the next level.
This seems like a good plan. I've been trying to do expirments like this but I find I'm often worried my experiments are gazebo effect because my own knowledge of what I'm testing means my reuslts could be shady.
I'm really hoping to study all times of day. Just imagine how much food affects your endocrines when you give it to your endocrines when you're sleeping. That will be some real interest time of day impact difference.
OK, you finally made me giggle instead of merely being annoyed with your silliness. Gazebo effect? That's pretty sweet.1 -
Just heard an interesting interview on "The Peoples Pharmacy" network with Barry Sears, the research scientist who wrote all those TheZone books. His latest one is The Mediterranean Zone Diet.
He was asked about the CICO concept and, of course, said NO, that is wrong. That what it really is, is HG/HL ... Hormones Generated/Hormones Lingering.
(edited for spelling)1 -
This content has been removed.
-
BreezeDoveal wrote: »Just heard an interesting interview on "The Peoples Pharmacy" network with Barry Sears, the research scientist who wrote all those TheZone books. His latest one is The Mediterranean Zone Diet.
He was asked about the CICO concept and, of course, said NO, that is wrong. That what it really is, is HG/HL ... Hormones Generated/Hormones Lingering.
(edited for spelling)
Well of course. Obesity is caused by inflammation. He's published about it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20953366
You are such a troll. The study says that obesity causes inflammation, not the other way around.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »"Why isn't it science? "
Saying a calorie isn't always a calorie is like saying a meter isn't always a meter or a pound isn't always a pound. They are units of measurement, by definition they are equivalent in all cases. It is a silly nonsensical statement.
Ultimately it is what the body does with those calories in. I do think that people's burn rates are faster or slower from one person to the next depending on current fitness level, height, etc. I have read that certain people are even more efficient at extracting more calories from fibrous vegetables and fruits than others!
Some others might not even be digesting all the calories which pass through the digestive system or are passing food through. There are also age, health/disease , hormones, biochemistry, and genetics, etc at play as variables regarding weight loss rates.
Where did you read that certain people are more efficient at extracting more calories from fibrous vegetables and fruits than others? I'd like to see that/those source(s).
The only extreme variable hindering weight loss is if you have a medical issue that needs attention, in which case the doctor needs to see you. Other than that, it's a given that there are other variables at play, but it does not negate the fact that a calorie is a calorie as to weight loss.
It's likely that gut bacteria are breaking it down allowing the body to absorb it better:
http://www.livescience.com/41954-gut-microbes-make-you-fat.html0 -
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"
But in your body they can be different and in your body is where they matter. For instance, your body will not store a calorie of alcohol as fat. It will for carbs, protein, and fat.
It won't? Sounds like an excuse alcoholics use to drink. If alcohol isn't carbs, protein or fat, what do you think it is?
It's alcohol. 7 calories per gram. And no, our bodies won't store it, however, the body will not burn anything else other than the alcohol until it used up.
As a non-drinker (a rare glass of wine because I'm on call for work 24/7), I honestly had no idea because I've seen calorie counts for drinks. Did a little reading and it's absolutely fascinating. Alcohol actually is a 4th macro. Huh. #thingineverknew2 -
at the end of the day it's all about calories and while this book doesn't promote calorie counting, when you look at the meal plan - it's a pretty moderate calorie plan - which is why there is weight loss.0
-
Barry Sears' article cited above proposes an "anti-inflammatory" diet composed mainly of monounsaturated fats, lean protein, an omega-3 source, colorful nonstarchy vegetables, and a moderate amount of fruit, with only limited amounts of grains. 30% fat, 30% protein, and 40% carbohydrate. He has ideas about the timing of macronutrients, too.
One weird thing about this is the article's discussion of avoiding egg yolks because they are a significant source of arachidonic acid...but so is chicken, which is recommended as a source of lean protein (?)0 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »Barry Sears' article cited above proposes an "anti-inflammatory" diet composed mainly of monounsaturated fats, lean protein, an omega-3 source, colorful nonstarchy vegetables, and a moderate amount of fruit, with only limited amounts of grains. 30% fat, 30% protein, and 40% carbohydrate. He has ideas about the timing of macronutrients, too.
One weird thing about this is the article's discussion of avoiding egg yolks because they are a significant source of arachidonic acid...but so is chicken, which is recommended as a source of lean protein (?)
Shocking how that works4 -
This content has been removed.
-
4 -
Scientific American is a magazine that publishes what journalists who like science find cool or what they believe based on what they have read or enjoyed about science, don't confuse it with an actual scientific publication.2
-
But is fun to read, like Cosmo!Aaron_K123 wrote: »Scientific American is a magazine that publishes what journalists who like science find cool or what they believe based on what they have read or enjoyed about science, don't confuse it with an actual scientific publication.
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
But is fun to read, like Cosmo!Aaron_K123 wrote: »Scientific American is a magazine that publishes what journalists who like science find cool or what they believe based on what they have read or enjoyed about science, don't confuse it with an actual scientific publication.
Yeah as magazines go it isn't bad, but it is a magazine, its not a scientific journal and its contents aren't science, they are journalism written by journalists.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »
But is fun to read, like Cosmo!Aaron_K123 wrote: »Scientific American is a magazine that publishes what journalists who like science find cool or what they believe based on what they have read or enjoyed about science, don't confuse it with an actual scientific publication.
Yeah as magazines go it isn't bad, but it is a magazine, its not a scientific journal and its contents aren't science, they are journalism written by journalists.
Agreed0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »
But is fun to read, like Cosmo!Aaron_K123 wrote: »Scientific American is a magazine that publishes what journalists who like science find cool or what they believe based on what they have read or enjoyed about science, don't confuse it with an actual scientific publication.
Yeah as magazines go it isn't bad, but it is a magazine, its not a scientific journal and its contents aren't science, they are journalism written by journalists.
Agreed
8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »
But is fun to read, like Cosmo!Aaron_K123 wrote: »Scientific American is a magazine that publishes what journalists who like science find cool or what they believe based on what they have read or enjoyed about science, don't confuse it with an actual scientific publication.
Yeah as magazines go it isn't bad, but it is a magazine, its not a scientific journal and its contents aren't science, they are journalism written by journalists.
Agreed
This cartoon is useless. Pretty much everyone on this thread will look at it and think - "ha, this is so true, but does not apply at all to what I am thinking / saying. "
0 -
Isabelle_1929 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »
But is fun to read, like Cosmo!Aaron_K123 wrote: »Scientific American is a magazine that publishes what journalists who like science find cool or what they believe based on what they have read or enjoyed about science, don't confuse it with an actual scientific publication.
Yeah as magazines go it isn't bad, but it is a magazine, its not a scientific journal and its contents aren't science, they are journalism written by journalists.
Agreed
This cartoon is useless. Pretty much everyone on this thread will look at it and think - "ha, this is so true, but does not apply at all to what I am thinking / saying. "
Interesting. What are your thoughts?0
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