Is a calorie a calorie?
Replies
-
Silentpadna wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »1) The MFP blog is a worthless source for reliable information. It's filled with woo and silliness.
2) This subject has been debated over and over again. Here's one of the more recent threads with plenty of discussion about it: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10654872/why-do-people-deny-cico/p1
3) A calorie is a calorie. And if you want science rather than MFP blog dreck to back that up, here's a link which references 148 different scientific studies proving it: https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/
Bookmarking, thanks.
Highlights:
https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/
People Have No Clue How Much they Eat
People are horrible at estimating their calorie intake.(72-120)
Overweight and obese people (especially women) are often the worst, but most people underestimate their calorie intake to some degree.
It’s true for men and women and people of all ages.
It’s true when people are given specific instructions on how to measure their food intake.
It’s true for dietitians.(102)
It’s true even when people are paid to track their food intake.(104)
In some cases, people who claim they can’t lose weight by cutting calories underestimate their food intake by 47%, and overestimate their exercise levels by 51%.(75) Other data has shown that people can underreport their food intake by up to 2,000 calories per day.(89)
It’s likely that the people on high carb diets are more likely to underreport their food intake. This would make it seem as if people on low-carb diets are losing weight despite eating more calories.
The people on high carb diets in weight loss studies are often told to consciously restrict their calorie intake and avoid “unhealthy” or “bad” foods, especially fat. These are all behaviors that generally increase the likelihood that people will underreport their food intake.(81,92,97-101,121)
On the other hand, the people eating the low-carb diets are often told to eat as much fat and protein as they want.
Remember that most of these people were probably making some attempt to control fat intake before the study, or were at least used to the idea that fat is “bad” (thanks largely to the USDA, FDA, and other health agencies). When they’re told to eat a low-carb high-fat diet and to eat as much of these previously “forbidden” foods as they want, even small amounts can feel like a lot of food.
People on low-carb diets often eat more total protein and fat, which helps blunt their appetite.(65-70,122) In contrast, the people in the high-carb groups in these studies are often eating lots of refined carbs which tend to be far less filling. In fact, studies have shown that it’s actually the high protein content of the diet that helps control appetite and cause weight loss, not the avoidance of carbs.(123)
Enjoying previously taboo foods, eating more protein and fat, and not being told to restrict calories drives people in the low-carb groups to eat less and report they’re eating more than they really are.
This effect wears off, however. These people generally get used to their new diet and start eating more of the low-carb high-fat foods — and thus total calories. Over time they also tend to get bored with their diet and become less compliant.
This is why most free-living studies lasting longer than six months have found that people on high- or low-carb diets lose the same amount of weight.(33,43,45,62,124,125) It’s probably also why many free-living studies have found that people lose the same amount of weight eating high- or low-carb diets.
This is why you should be highly skeptical of people who claim they lost weight without eating fewer calories. Calories count. These people are just not counting them accurately, if at all.
Gold ^^^^^
All of it.
I wanted to use a shorter quote but as you said, it was all gold
0 -
CarvedTones wrote: »The discussion is veering off into "Is what you think is a calorie actually just a calorie?" which is an interesting, but different, question.
100% predictable. It happens in Every. CICO. Thread. Ever.
Hormonal fluctuations, water retention, the inaccuracies involved with calorie counting, etc., etc. have absolutely zero to do with the law of energy balance (which is precisely what CICO is). Nor does nutrition, if we're hypothetically speaking purely in terms of weight loss.
The formula for a circumference of a circle is completely garbage lies because it doesn't tell me how much my tennis ball weighs.8 -
I have often questioned if a calorie means more to one person than another. My answer is the unit of measure does not differ. a mile does not become shorter for those who cannot attain it as easily as others.
I'm squarely in that camp trying to work out why, in spite of reducing calorifric in take nothing is working. Record the calories, sometimes under, but still manage to gain.
The above inference that hormonal issues have zero to contribute, maybe my excuse, is utterly inaccurate - all good intentions intended .
For me, a calorie can take me far further than someone else, why, I'm still trying to work out. I wish I knew why my metabolic rate is not normal. Well I do know my thyroid is out of kilter, but with medication that ought to be OK -well apparently not.
I am in awe of those who don't have an issue, CICO is an easy formula. On paper it is and I wished it to be so simple. Total starvation, will ultimately result in wight loss but at what heath cost?13 -
stevephi01 wrote: »I have often questioned if a calorie means more to one person than another. My answer is the unit of measure does not differ. a mile does not become shorter for those who cannot attain it as easily as others.
I'm squarely in that camp trying to work out why, in spite of reducing calorifric in take nothing is working. Record the calories, sometimes under, but still manage to gain.
The above inference that hormonal issues have zero to contribute, maybe my excuse, is utterly inaccurate - all good intentions intended .
For me, a calorie can take me far further than someone else, why, I'm still trying to work out. I wish I knew why my metabolic rate is not normal. Well I do know my thyroid is out of kilter, but with medication that ought to be OK -well apparently not.
I am in awe of those who don't have an issue, CICO is an easy formula. On paper it is and I wished it to be so simple. Total starvation, will ultimately result in wight loss but at what heath cost?
So your results over time are what matters. How SURE are you about the absolute accuracy of your caloric intake.
I can guarantee you that unless you log your food before you eat it and you're cooking it yourself and only for yourself you're likely under logging. After three years it still takes me a crap load of time to check the USDA database for standard reference before choosing an appropriate database entry for a new food that's not in my quick lists. More often than not I have to fix the % daily values for nutrients since people tend to dump the raw value as a percentage. And then debate with my self if raw or cooked values (if applicable) would be more appropriate for a certain item.
How are you estimating calories out? A consistent third party device or the exerxise database per your recall.
Last but not least are you looking at your weight trend over time and how much of a delta are we talking about?
Can a 500 Cal interpersonal difference mean that one person loses and another doesn't under apparently the same conditions? Absolutely.
Is it likely that 1000 Cal interpersonal difference will pop up? Much less so.
You may have to accept a slower rate of loss, or may have to do more or both as compared to a "luckier" individual.
But you're not condemned to an inability to affect your destiny.8 -
Thank you for your response, indeed I have accepted a lower loss expectation, in the order of a quarter of what I had achieved in the previous 3 months. It was when I lost a bit the underlying condition decided to become mainstream.
My expenditure out is device based, 'my weapon' of choice is Polar -a brand which has chosen to take different approach to CICO. My take on that is eat what you like, but you have to work it off.
My reality is I've cut out a bit, any more I'll be unhealthy, as it is MFP won't allow me to close my diary.
My wrist device tells me what I ought to be doing and then changes plan when I do actually manage to lose a bit.
Regarding deltas, Jan to mid Feb, lets call it March was nearly 10 kg's (22lbs), hit a plateau and very little since, in fact went the opposite direction - having reached that milestone, I'd have expected to have an appreciation of weight loss. A solid no from my body and my hypothyroidism symptoms which I had thought were under control, went ballistic.
Fair enough, my condition is far from the norm - one for which I am less than impressed - but which I have to accept and endure.
Back to the original question, yes a calorie is just that, how it is processed (metabolised) is a totally different answer.5 -
stevephi01 wrote: »Thank you for your response, indeed I have accepted a lower loss expectation, in the order of a quarter of what I had achieved in the previous 3 months. It was when I lost a bit the underlying condition decided to become mainstream.
My expenditure out is device based, 'my weapon' of choice is Polar -a brand which has chosen to take different approach to CICO. My take on that is eat what you like, but you have to work it off.
My reality is I've cut out a bit, any more I'll be unhealthy, as it is MFP won't allow me to close my diary.
My wrist device tells me what I ought to be doing and then changes plan when I do actually manage to lose a bit.
Regarding deltas, Jan to mid Feb, lets call it March was nearly 10 kg's (22lbs), hit a plateau and very little since, in fact went the opposite direction - having reached that milestone, I'd have expected to have an appreciation of weight loss. A solid no from my body and my hypothyroidism symptoms which I had thought were under control, went ballistic.
Fair enough, my condition is far from the norm - one for which I am less than impressed - but which I have to accept and endure.
Back to the original question, yes a calorie is just that, how it is processed (metabolised) is a totally different answer.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/So there is no doubt that there are individual differences and efficiencies between people, that probably explains why you can find one person who reports near-magical results with nearly every diet out there: they happened to hit the one that just ‘fit’ their individual metabolism and chemistry. It would be silly to ignore all of that and I do hate being silly.
But that doesn’t change the fundamental rules of thermodynamics which apply to everybody and everything. Given 100 calories, the most you can store is 100 calories. Sure, one person may only store 75, while another stores all 100, but 100 is still the maximum. It’s a physiological impossibility to store more than you actually ate because you can’t make something out of nothing. There’s lots of things like this, that you simply can’t do. You can’t make gold out of lead, you can’t find an honest politician, and you can’t store 500 calories if you only ate 300.
So when a 300 pound individual, who probably has a maintenance intake of 4000+ calories, says that they gained weight on 1400 calories I have to be very leery of how true that is. Either they are that 1 in 100,000 person with a metabolic rate below 1400 at that bodyweight (who has never been found to exist in any study on the topic over a span of about 5+ decades), or they aren’t being accurate in how much food they are eating or how many calories they are burning each day. You can probably guess which one I think it is. And, so we’re clear, I’m not saying that they are deliberately lying, either, I want to make that very clear. They are just as bad as everybody else at estimating their caloric intake and expenditure. Which is apparently pretty bad.
Which is why you can’t magically gain weight on 1000 calories per day if your maintenance intake is 2000 calories per day. Either your body will mobilize stored fuels, or it will slow down metabolic rate to 1000 to put you back into balance (and no study has ever shown the latter to occur in the absence of rather massive weight loss). Something has to happen. But weight gain on sub-maintenance calories isn’t one of them.
It’s also why you can’t not gain weight on 3000 calories per day if your metabolic rate is only 2000 calories per day. Either you start storing fuel or your body is speeding up metabolic rate to compensate. Something has to happen.6 -
I am trying to zero in on mine and I think it is lower than calculated estimates. I am walking ~4 miles a day, usually without logging it. Probably averaging slightly under 1800 total the last 4 weeks and weight has been pretty steady. If that's what it is, then that's what I'll eat. It doesn't make my calories any bigger if I get fewer though.
EDIT - Being stuck is good; I am in maintenance.2 -
@AnvilHead thank you for the info, I've got myself into a right state over this which lead me to write all that rubbish.
Was not my intention, but I did 'successfully' portray the notion of being different, pretty stupid of me - a routine blood test has shown a significant change in one area from the previous years, having a more in depth test this week and it was this that I was alluding to, not very well.
I also neglected to say about the change in Calories out, at around the time of the plateau my energy levels crashed and with it my mood so the 4 or 5 weekly hour rowing machine sessions and my 2 mile walk at lunch time stopped. I walk to and from work, that's about 2 miles, but I'm walking slower. All of this is most likely the major contributing factor, the blood results may indicate I've got to adjust what I'm eating as I could be aiding the problem - but will address that if it is an issue.
I agree about the calorie in count and it is quite possible the figures are too low. I batch prepare several meals which I freeze, everything gets weighed but there is still an element of error - it could be I'm not eating enough and that is what is slowing the metabolism down.
I'd like to thank you again for taking the time to answer my post given all the drivel I wrote, attracting a number of woo's (hangs his head in shame) - also to the OP, apologies for hijacking your thread13 -
stevephi01 wrote: »@AnvilHead thank you for the info, I've got myself into a right state over this which lead me to write all that rubbish.
Was not my intention, but I did 'successfully' portray the notion of being different, pretty stupid of me - a routine blood test has shown a significant change in one area from the previous years, having a more in depth test this week and it was this that I was alluding to, not very well.
I also neglected to say about the change in Calories out, at around the time of the plateau my energy levels crashed and with it my mood so the 4 or 5 weekly hour rowing machine sessions and my 2 mile walk at lunch time stopped. I walk to and from work, that's about 2 miles, but I'm walking slower. All of this is most likely the major contributing factor, the blood results may indicate I've got to adjust what I'm eating as I could be aiding the problem - but will address that if it is an issue.
I agree about the calorie in count and it is quite possible the figures are too low. I batch prepare several meals which I freeze, everything gets weighed but there is still an element of error - it could be I'm not eating enough and that is what is slowing the metabolism down.
I'd like to thank you again for taking the time to answer my post given all the drivel I wrote, attracting a number of woo's (hangs his head in shame) - also to the OP, apologies for hijacking your thread
Kudos to you for posting this. There are so many who are unwilling to take things on board and learn. You sir, are a breath of fresh air.
Best wishes.11 -
There was a study on rats (done at Cambridge) I don't even know if the text of the study is online, but anyway it showed this in rats, their hypoythalamus would regulate the body like a thermostat, to burn the equivalent calories they ate. But even that doesn't mean rats - and certainly not people - won't lose weight. If you're losing weight then it's not something to worry about. (It's what people sometimes call starvation mode.)As you increase or decrease your calories per day, your body and its metabolic system adapts to compensate for the change.3 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »The formula for a circumference of a circle is completely garbage lies because it doesn't tell me how much my tennis ball weighs.
About 57g (2oz)3 -
vermilionflower wrote: »their hypoythalamus would regulate the body like a thermostat, to burn the equivalent calories they ate.
It's a pity there's an upper limit and the rest turns to fat
I know that is ridiculous, back in time when our ancestors would eat when they could (feast / famine) fat reserves were vital to survival.
However I'd like to support what you said, not withstanding my comments from the depths of despair 2 days ago. All the comments made generally and those directly to me are all logical and make perfect sense, so yesterday I took a hard look at what I was doing and eating because likewise there had to be a logical explanation as to why my mileage varied.
I found that I had to create far more of a deficit than given on my 'profile' before any weight would shift, I put that down to recording errors both on CI and CO - but it was in the order of 1000 Kcal a day, so if that were the case I must have really been messing up the recordings!
Looking back now, I think I had unwittingly slowed down my metabolic rate but only noticed it when the weight loss stopped and the energy levels were non existent, the slow down could have been happening for a good few weeks or the whole time I was losing.
That still didn't explain what was going on, <clears throat for an admission> I hadn't paid much attention to the protein intake which was low as was my fat, but what really grabbed me was my potassium intake was a quarter of RDA. Last night I tried to address that in my evening meal, protein and fat upped and improved the K (still down though).
For the first time ever I was over my daily Kcal allowance, not by much, but that didn't worry me.
To my utter amazement the scale displayed just over a kg less than it's ever done before, but possibly what is even more important is I'm feeling a little bit better and I didn't do my workout.
I'm sure a lot of the loss was water and I'll see corrections - but will be paying far more attention to the nutrients, fat and protein in future. If I'd taken note at the beginning, I am confidant I wouldn't have got into the state I did as the loss would have been easier.
I wouldn't have thought the metabolism would have reacted so quickly, but maybe there was an element of that at play too4 -
Poisonedpawn78 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »The discussion is veering off into "Is what you think is a calorie actually just a calorie?" which is an interesting, but different, question.
100% predictable. It happens in Every. CICO. Thread. Ever.
Hormonal fluctuations, water retention, the inaccuracies involved with calorie counting, etc., etc. have absolutely zero to do with the law of energy balance (which is precisely what CICO is). Nor does nutrition, if we're hypothetically speaking purely in terms of weight loss.
The formula for a circumference of a circle is completely garbage lies because it doesn't tell me how much my tennis ball weighs.
Pie are not square; pie are round. 2
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