Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Justify CICO w/ thermodynamics of food!
pinggolfer96
Posts: 2,248 Member
I’m not arguing cico for weight loss or gain. I’m probably one of the biggest iifym’ers there is. But you can’t argue a calorie is a calorie once it enters the body if it takes a helllll of a lot more calories for the body to digest protein than fat. ESP at basically half the caloric content. Say someone was in a coma at their bmr, would they gain more weight eating 2000 cals of fat or 2000 cals of protein? Aside from hitting minimum macronutrient goals. Just stick to the question/ thought....👇🏻👇🏻
18
Replies
-
Irrelevant, since nobody could survive long term on a diet of 100% fat or 100% protein.
The commonly accepted TEF of mixed meals is 10%.
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/...The thermic effect of food (TEF, also known as specific dynamic action or SDA or Dietary Induced Thermogenesis or DIT) refers to the slight bump in metabolic rate that occurs after eating, due to processing and utilization of the ingested nutrients. For example, protein has to be broken down and processed in the liver which requires energy. As well, the simple act of eating protein stimulates protein synthesis in various tissues (organs, liver, muscle) as well. All of which takes energy. Carbohydrates get broken down to glucose, which goes through the liver, some processing, etc. Fat undergoes the least processing. There are exceptions such as medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) which undergo quite a bit of processing in the liver, causing a slight bump in metabolic rate (via TEF) in the process.
As it turns out, different nutrients have different individual TEF’s. Protein turns out to have the highest, to the tune of 20-30%. Meaning that of the total protein calories you eat, 20-30% is lost in processing. Carbohydrate stored as glycogen requires about 5-6% of the total calories. Carbohydrate converted to fat (which generally doesn’t happen in very significant amounts) uses up ~23% of the total calories as TEF. Most fats have a tiny TEF, maybe 2-3% (because they can be stored as fat in fat cells with minimal processing).
Since it’s usually impractical to sit and figure out the individual TEFs for each nutrient, the normal estimate used is 10% of total caloric intake. So if you consume 3000 calories per day of a relatively ‘normal’ mixed diet, you can assume that your TEF is about 300 calories per day or so. You also generally find that, with the exception of extreme diets (such as all protein), shuffling macronutrients has a pretty minimal overall impact on metabolic rate via TEF.
For example, consider the difference in TEF for carbs versus fat: 5-6% vs. 3%. That means that, for every 100 calories of each you ate, you’d burn 5-6 or 3 calories. So if you replaced 100 calories of fat with 100 calories of carbohydrates, you’d burn a whopping 2-3 extra calories via TEF. If you replaced 1000 calories of fat with 1000 calories of carbohydrates, you’d burn 20-30 more calories. If you were able, by some means, to replace 2000 calories of fat with carbohydrates, you would burn 40-60 more calories via TEF. One study found that metabolism was about 4% higher (100 calories per day or so) for the higher carb versus the higher protein diet. That still only amounts to an extra pound lost per month or so. Nothing to write home about to be sure.
About the only time that TEF can become considerable is when you replace carbohydrates or fat with protein. For every 100 calories of carbs/fat replaced with protein, you’d expect to burn about 25 calories more (30 cal for protein vs. 3-6 for carbs/fat). So a doubling of protein from 60 to120 grams/day might increase TEF by 80 calories/day. Triple it to 180 grams/day and TEF could increase by 150 calories. The 20-30% TEF of protein can become even more significant at extreme intakes. However, for the most part, such extreme intakes aren’t practical or used outside of the bodybuilding subculture. In all but the most extreme diets, protein stays fairly static and carbs and fats are shuffled around; the effect is typically minimal in terms of TEF.10 -
If it actually has a notable effect to the CO part of the equation ... in the fact that CO increases as the body is using more energy in digestion of protein.
The I propose a no chew dust where you just swallow giant junks of meat without chewing and loose weight quicker as the body increases CO as it works harder to break down the dense lump1 -
If it actually has a notable effect to the CO part of the equation ... in the fact that CO increases as the body is using more energy in digestion of protein.
The I propose a no chew dust where you just swallow giant junks of meat without chewing and loose weight quicker as the body increases CO as it works harder to break down the dense lump
Your companion gets to log the exercise of multiple Heimlich maneuvers.12 -
"A helllll" of a lot more calories comes up to 7 calories per 1000 calories eaten per 10% of your diet being protein instead of carbs or fat. So in your example (where both would die of malnutrition which is common with dumb extremes like that), it would be 7 * 2 * 10 = 140 more. Wow.
Source: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/5/899S/469022313 -
This is a perfect example of "technically true but not practically relevant", aka majoring in minors.17
-
stevencloser wrote: »"A helllll" of a lot more calories comes up to 7 calories per 1000 calories eaten per 10% of your diet being protein instead of carbs or fat. So in your example (where both would die of malnutrition which is common with dumb extremes like that), it would be 7 * 2 * 10 = 140 more. Wow.
Source: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/5/899S/4690223
^This...2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »This is a perfect example of "technically true but not practically relevant", aka majoring in minors.
^And this...2 -
The equation of calories in vs calories out hold true. However certain things like excessive sugary snacks even while in a calorie deficit will contribute to fat gain long term.37
-
Sunrain2018 wrote: »The equation of calories in vs calories out hold true. However certain things like excessive sugary snacks even while in a calorie deficit will contribute to fat gain long term.
If someone eats sugary snacks, does the body generate energy from thin air not only to run its processes but to store fat as well? If humans were a perpetual magical energy generating machine we wouldn't have evolved eating (and we wouldn't be living in this universe anyway).9 -
Sunrain2018 wrote: »The equation of calories in vs calories out hold true. However certain things like excessive sugary snacks even while in a calorie deficit will contribute to fat gain long term.
No.4 -
Sunrain2018 wrote: »The equation of calories in vs calories out hold true. However certain things like excessive sugary snacks even while in a calorie deficit will contribute to fat gain long term.
Wrong5 -
About the only time that TEF can become considerable is when you replace carbohydrates or fat with protein. For every 100 calories of carbs/fat replaced with protein, you’d expect to burn about 25 calories more (30 cal for protein vs. 3-6 for carbs/fat).
So replacing only 100 calories of carbs or fat with protein each day burns 9,125 calories extra per year, which is 2.5 lbs. of body fat. That cancels out the 1-2 lbs the average adult gains per year. Seems significant to me.
3 -
Sunrain2018 wrote: »The equation of calories in vs calories out hold true. However certain things like excessive sugary snacks even while in a calorie deficit will contribute to fat gain long term.
How exactly do you think this happens, that the body would store fat in a calorie deficit?2 -
Cherimoose wrote: »About the only time that TEF can become considerable is when you replace carbohydrates or fat with protein. For every 100 calories of carbs/fat replaced with protein, you’d expect to burn about 25 calories more (30 cal for protein vs. 3-6 for carbs/fat).
So replacing only 100 calories of carbs or fat with protein each day burns 9,125 calories extra per year, which is 2.5 lbs. of body fat. That cancels out the 1-2 lbs the average adult gains per year. Seems significant to me.
Not saying that little changes don't make a difference over time, but there are a lot of different ways to accomplish that. And yes, micromanaging your macros to play with TEF could be one of them, if one was so inclined.
A 25-30 calorie difference per day is also less than the inherent errors in calorie logging, less than you'd get by taking a few hundred more steps over the course of a day. You could burn that many calories by parking a little further out in the lot at the grocery store and walking down two extra aisles you didn't need to, lol.5 -
A 25-30 calorie difference per day is also less than the inherent errors in calorie logging, less than you'd get by taking a few hundred more steps over the course of a day. You could burn that many calories by parking a little further out in the lot at the grocery store and walking down two extra aisles you didn't need to, lol.
For those with physical limitations (including the OP's example) the 80 extra calories burned from increasing protein from 60 to 120 grams/day would burn over 8 lbs per year, so it's a useful addition to calorie reduction.0 -
Cherimoose wrote: »A 25-30 calorie difference per day is also less than the inherent errors in calorie logging, less than you'd get by taking a few hundred more steps over the course of a day. You could burn that many calories by parking a little further out in the lot at the grocery store and walking down two extra aisles you didn't need to, lol.
For those with physical limitations (including the OP's example) the 80 extra calories burned from increasing protein from 60 to 120 grams/day would burn over 8 lbs per year, so it's a useful addition to calorie reduction.
That is in the hopes that the 80 extra calories are not unknowingly negated in some other way.8 -
Sunrain2018 wrote: »The equation of calories in vs calories out hold true. However certain things like excessive sugary snacks even while in a calorie deficit will contribute to fat gain long term.
This ^^^^ deserves to go inside a trash can. I am not talking about the person but the message.11 -
stevencloser wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »For those with physical limitations (including the OP's example) the 80 extra calories burned from increasing protein from 60 to 120 grams/day would burn over 8 lbs per year, so it's a useful addition to calorie reduction.
That is in the hopes that the 80 extra calories are not unknowingly negated in some other way.
Of course - same with all weight loss behaviors. The point was that 8 pounds per year isn't "majoring in minors" as stated earlier. That's enough to prevent most obesity all by itself.5 -
pinggolfer96 wrote: »I’m not arguing cico for weight loss or gain. I’m probably one of the biggest iifym’ers there is. But you can’t argue a calorie is a calorie once it enters the body if it takes a helllll of a lot more calories for the body to digest protein than fat. ESP at basically half the caloric content. Say someone was in a coma at their bmr, would they gain more weight eating 2000 cals of fat or 2000 cals of protein? Aside from hitting minimum macronutrient goals. Just stick to the question/ thought....👇🏻👇🏻
The vast majority of difference in calories per gram is not due to protein taking "more energy" to digest, its that protein by weight has less contained energy than fat. Hydrocarbon bonds have the highest energy to weight ratio and fats are entirely hydrocarbon while protein has many additional types of bonds that are less energetic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
The specific energy of fat is 37 megajoules per kilogram while protein is 16.8 megajoules per kilogram. The ratio 37 to 17 is basically the same as the caloric ratio per gram of 9 to 4. So it has nothing to do with digestion. If you physically lit a pile of 100 grams of protein on fire it would produce less energy than if you lit 100 grams of fat on fire...it isn't digestion that causes protein to have less energy than fat.5 -
Cherimoose wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »For those with physical limitations (including the OP's example) the 80 extra calories burned from increasing protein from 60 to 120 grams/day would burn over 8 lbs per year, so it's a useful addition to calorie reduction.
That is in the hopes that the 80 extra calories are not unknowingly negated in some other way.
Of course - same with all weight loss behaviors. The point was that 8 pounds per year isn't "majoring in minors" as stated earlier. That's enough to prevent most obesity all by itself.
To me 80 calories a day is pretty minor, especially for such a huge lifestyle change. It’s easy to have more than that big of a difference in guesstimates of calories if you ever eat something prepared by someone else. Also easy to have that big of a difference in estimated calories burned exercising.2 -
Turn on your TV and watch NAKED AND AFRAID or ALONE. These are supposed to be survival shows but they are closer to food deprivation endurance events (i.e. slow starvation).
FACT CHECK: The premise of these shows are actually as follows:
very few or no calories in = weight loss to massive weight loss - depending on how long they last.
They lose weight whether they eat worms, snakes, fish, grasshoppers, plants, etc. Thermodynamics has nothing to do with it.
1
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions