Is a calorie a calorie ?

Funnydream

Being very close to my target weight and keen to get this maintainence thing right for the first time in my life, I've been doing some experimentation on my intake.

Is a calorie gained from, say, fats, weighted more in terms of weight gain than a calorie gained from, say, veg? I have a feeling (no empirical evidence here) that this is the case.

Does anyone know anything about this?

SHBoss1673

This isn't an easy question to answer.

In terms of the definition of a calorie it's the same no matter what food it comes from. I.E. a calorie (actually a Kcalorie but that's neither here nor there) is a unit of measure for the amount of heat it takes to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.

but in terms of the human body, different types of foods offer different means of breakdown and usage. The body doesn't just take all incoming food and immediately convert them to energy. Some food types are broken down into component parts for building blocks, some are used for energy, and some are stored for later use, and a few are passed through the system and expelled.

Even then if a calorie is broken up and recombined as energy, there are different pathways to energy that can be used. Some foods are immediately broken up into simple sugars then recombined into glucose(glucose is the sugar that our body can burn as energy) and sent to the areas of the body that need energy immediately. Others are turned into other molecules and circulated as free fatty acids (triglycerides) and yet others are turned into lipids and stored (body fat). It depends on the needs of the body at the time of digestion.

then you have the "non-carbohydrate" foods, like fats and proteins. Both of which can be eventually turned into glucose derivatives if necessary, but this isn't the primary pathway for either of them. The body will use carbohydrates first for energy if it has a choice, but if there is either too little incoming carbohydrates, or the carbohydrates consumed are taking to long to digest, the body will supplement this with fat and protein to increase energy production. If there isn't enough incoming calories total to meet the needs (all forms of calories), then the body will siphon off calories from existing areas, using fat stores and protein stores as reserves. It's a longer process to convert fat and protein into usable calories, which is why carbohydrates are the preferred energy source for the body, but they will still be used if deemed necessary by the body.

So the answer with regards to the human body is essentially, no a calorie is not always the same.

If you eat refined sugar, the road map from food to energy is a few minutes, if you eat a carrot, the road map is about 2 hours, thus you can see, by eating sugary foods or refined enriched white flour foods you risk flooding your body with extra calories quickly, which can lead to fat storage (and that sugar high you get when you eat something full of sugar and white flour). Conversely if you eat high quality complex carbohydrate foods like veggies, it takes longer for the body to break them down and use them, which means no glut of calories in the body, which means less conversion to fat. this is without all the other benefits you receive from natural foods (like the vitamin, and mineral needs of the body).

Funnydream

Thank you SHBOSS for such a full, comprehensive reply. Much appreciated! I'm going to add you as a friend, because I need knowledgeable friends like you, if that's ok?

iluvsparkles

Once again Banks, you explained it in a way that we can understand. Well done...I promise that there are still people out there who really listen to your advice.

lina1131

This isn't an easy question to answer.

In terms of the definition of a calorie it's the same no matter what food it comes from. I.E. a calorie (actually a Kcalorie but that's neither here nor there) is a unit of measure for the amount of heat it takes to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.

but in terms of the human body, different types of foods offer different means of breakdown and usage. The body doesn't just take all incoming food and immediately convert them to energy. Some food types are broken down into component parts for building blocks, some are used for energy, and some are stored for later use, and a few are passed through the system and expelled.

Even then if a calorie is broken up and recombined as energy, there are different pathways to energy that can be used. Some foods are immediately broken up into simple sugars then recombined into glucose(glucose is the sugar that our body can burn as energy) and sent to the areas of the body that need energy immediately. Others are turned into other molecules and circulated as free fatty acids (triglycerides) and yet others are turned into lipids and stored (body fat). It depends on the needs of the body at the time of digestion.

then you have the "non-carbohydrate" foods, like fats and proteins. Both of which can be eventually turned into glucose derivatives if necessary, but this isn't the primary pathway for either of them. The body will use carbohydrates first for energy if it has a choice, but if there is either too little incoming carbohydrates, or the carbohydrates consumed are taking to long to digest, the body will supplement this with fat and protein to increase energy production. If there isn't enough incoming calories total to meet the needs (all forms of calories), then the body will siphon off calories from existing areas, using fat stores and protein stores as reserves. It's a longer process to convert fat and protein into usable calories, which is why carbohydrates are the preferred energy source for the body, but they will still be used if deemed necessary by the body.

So the answer with regards to the human body is essentially, no a calorie is not always the same.

If you eat refined sugar, the road map from food to energy is a few minutes, if you eat a carrot, the road map is about 2 hours, thus you can see, by eating sugary foods or refined enriched white flour foods you risk flooding your body with extra calories quickly, which can lead to fat storage (and that sugar high you get when you eat something full of sugar and white flour). Conversely if you eat high quality complex carbohydrate foods like veggies, it takes longer for the body to break them down and use them, which means no glut of calories in the body, which means less conversion to fat. this is without all the other benefits you receive from natural foods (like the vitamin, and mineral needs of the body).

This is seriously the best I have ever had it explained to me and I actually understand it (kind of :laugh:) Thanks Banks!

suziblues2000

I just want to say thanx to Funnydream for asking this question and thanx to the person who answered it so completely.

RIght now I"m on my way out the door to take s yr. old grand son to park. When I come back I'm gonna seriously read this.

Thank you again.

stormieweather

I was just reading something about how fat calories are easiest to convert to body fat, and sugar ingested stimulates Insulin production which fires up the fat storage function.

Thanks Banks, for the great response (as usual) :flowerforyou:

sindyb9

Thank you for the question and as always thanks for the great answer banks :drinker:

canstey

I hate to go against an authority like Banks but while he is technically correct on the breakdown of food and the immediate impact on the body (like sugar), he is incorrect that it has any significant effect on weight management at the end of the day. From a weight management point of view, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Eat more calories than you burn regardless of the source and you will gain weight. This is the first law of thermodynamics and the body cannot violate it. There is no "it depends" worth considering. The human body can increase fat reserves even if you eat no fat and the extra energy required to do the conversion as opposed to storing fat in the fat reserves isn't worth counting.

There are lots of reasons for different breakdowns of macro nutrients for health reasons but that was not the OP question.

SHBoss1673

I'm cool with the calories in vs. calories concept, and I don't believe anything I said counteracted that, but following that principle alone is a far to simplified model to be effective in the long term. My goal is for healthy weight loss. And I'll only ever make recomendations with that in mind. To that point, food type and quality is an important consideration.

if all it took was calories in vs. calories out, then one would be able to eat twinkies every day and still maintain their body. Which is not true. The type and quality of a calorie is JUST as important to long term health and fat loss as is the amount of calories you take in.

Plus when considering thermodynamics, you must consider the net calories. I.E. sugar is a far easier and less costly digestion process than is something more complex like say, vegitible matter. Because complex carbohydrates are not digested until they reach the intestines, and the body must break those carbohydrates out of a fiber matrix before it can be broken down, these types of foods are a much more "expensive" calorie to produce, add to that the metabolic requirements needed to turn a complex carbohydrate into a simple suger, and you have your answer.

Again, not saying calories in vs. calories out isn't a valid concept. Just saying that if you want to look at long term healthy options with fat loss included, then you need to consider more than just the caloric value of a food.

canstey

I think you are mixing weight management and healthy eating too much and it leads people to assume incorrectly that if you eat healthy foods, calories don't count. This is what low-carb diet proponents do; imply without ever actually stating it that the types of food matter more than calories.

Calories in - calories out isn't a concept, it is a fact from physics. There is some small amount of difference in calories consumed by digestion between different types of food but it isn't worth taking into account and saying "Since nuts take more calories to digest, I should only count 90% of the calories in nuts but 100% of the calories in the twinkie". Study after study shows that when calories are controlled, regardless of the quality of the calories weight management results are the same and they did not attempt to compensate for difference in energy required to digest. It just doesn't make enough of a difference. There are some studies that suggest the breakdown of macro nutrients may have an impact on body composition when calories are the same but they are incomplete to come to that conclusion yet.

I totally agree with you that healthy balanced eating is the way to go but that does not negate that eating an excess of calories, whether healthy or not, leads to weight gain. If you follow "Calories always count and they all count the same" you will not be lead astray even if that is only a 99% accurate statement. Then you combine that with "Eating healthy foods and minimizing the amount of processed foods in your diet will help you have a healthier body" and you have a winning combination.

pchristie

This is all so interesting. Thank you for all this valuable information. There is an overabundance of misinformation out there. It is nice to read scientific, research-based facts.

Just to give my two cents on the initial question, what I have noticed with my body is that, there have been times in my life when I have been very thin and have eaten very little of foods like pizza, hot wings, and beer, and then there have been times - like now - when I have been bigger and eaten too much of healthy food with the occasional hot wings and beer

I have felt the best and been the healthiest and the thinnest when I have eaten healthy food and stuck to a low calorie, low fat diet and included exercise as a lifestyle.

SHBoss1673

I think you are mixing weight management and healthy eating too much and it leads people to assume incorrectly that if you eat healthy foods, calories don't count. This is what low-carb diet proponents do; imply without ever actually stating it that the types of food matter more than calories.

Calories in - calories out isn't a concept, it is a fact from physics. There is some small amount of difference in calories consumed by digestion between different types of food but it isn't worth taking into account and saying "Since nuts take more calories to digest, I should only count 90% of the calories in nuts but 100% of the calories in the twinkie". Study after study shows that when calories are controlled, regardless of the quality of the calories weight management results are the same and they did not attempt to compensate for difference in energy required to digest. It just doesn't make enough of a difference. There are some studies that suggest the breakdown of macro nutrients may have an impact on body composition when calories are the same but they are incomplete to come to that conclusion yet.

I totally agree with you that healthy balanced eating is the way to go but that does not negate that eating an excess of calories, whether healthy or not, leads to weight gain. If you follow "Calories always count and they all count the same" you will not be lead astray even if that is only a 99% accurate statement. Then you combine that with "Eating healthy foods and minimizing the amount of processed foods in your diet will help you have a healthier body" and you have a winning combination.

Yeah, I'm not doing this 2 days in a row.

Believe what you like big guy. Someone else can take up this cause, I don't have the energy.

Funnydream

Thank you for all the replies.

The reason I asked the OP question, is that I have observed in myself (not proof of anything except how my body works) that when I eat a set number of calories which are comprised of a higher than normal (for me) amount of fats I tend to gain a pound. When the same number of calories are comprised of low fat foods I would tend to either stay the same or lose weight. Of course there is the variable of exercise (among other variables) and in the main I tend to do the same amount every day. Having said that, I might STILL gain a pound even on a day when the exercise calories are triple the usual amount, but when the intake of food contains more fats.

I'm just mucking about with what I eat because I really need to lick this weight management thing, as I'm totally serious about keeping slim for the rest of life. But it's an interesting experiment and I do thank you all for your comments.

recipe4success

Being very close to my target weight and keen to get this maintainence thing right for the first time in my life, I've been doing some experimentation on my intake.

Is a calorie gained from, say, fats, weighted more in terms of weight gain than a calorie gained from, say, veg? I have a feeling (no empirical evidence here) that this is the case.

Does anyone know anything about this?

The answer is: it depends on what else you ate that day, when you eat those foods, and what you eat at the same time as those foods.

In general I would say it is easier to gain weight from fats, simply because fats are digested last (alcohol, carb and protein are first). In addition, another consideration is the amount of salt in your food...fatty food (depending on the source) can tend to have alot of salt which will inhibit your ability to maintain weight as well (cause bloating).

Vegetable calories will be used by the body faster than fat calories, so yes you are less likely to see weight gain from a slight excess of vegetable consumption.

But all in all, it is the total calories consumed and expended that matters. One can get fat or gain weight even if they are eating clean, healthy foods. You can lose weight just eating mars bars, and gain weight eating carrots, but both of these situations are extremely unhealthy and will result in a drastic decrease in overall health, which is why a balanced diet is important.

sonichic

Interesting discussion. I have to agree with SHBoss1673. you gave a brilliant answer and in nice simple language which people will understand. I always remember this formula from my school days to explain where energy come from.

Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories
Alcohol: 1 gram = 7 calories

On my 1000 calorie a day diet I know what foods I like to pick from. It makes sense really Proetin and Carbs first, and then the fats.
Of course there are good and bad in all food categories.....Thanks again SHBoss1673

canstey

Thank you for all the replies.

The reason I asked the OP question, is that I have observed in myself (not proof of anything except how my body works) that when I eat a set number of calories which are comprised of a higher than normal (for me) amount of fats I tend to gain a pound. When the same number of calories are comprised of low fat foods I would tend to either stay the same or lose weight. Of course there is the variable of exercise (among other variables) and in the main I tend to do the same amount every day. Having said that, I might STILL gain a pound even on a day when the exercise calories are triple the usual amount, but when the intake of food contains more fats.

I'm just mucking about with what I eat because I really need to lick this weight management thing, as I'm totally serious about keeping slim for the rest of life. But it's an interesting experiment and I do thank you all for your comments.

So you are looking at a single day's weight loss/gain and the food for that day and coming to a conclusion? That is much too short a time and between varying water weight and food still being pass through the body you could easily go up or down several pounds in a day.

You cannot gain a pound of fat reserves in a day unless you eat an extra 3500 calories over your expenditure, which you are clearly not doing. If you really want to see if higher fat diet with constant calories makes a difference for you, you would need to eat that diet for a few weeks and see if you keep gaining weight. That is assuming you want to eat a higher fat diet than you do now.

Ryhenblue

I think you are mixing weight management and healthy eating too much and it leads people to assume incorrectly that if you eat healthy foods, calories don't count.

I think just about everyone on this site is here to learn healthy eating to manage their weight. So giving an example with those two things in mind is great. Plus this is a calorie counting site so no one here should get the impression that calories don't matter. Nowhere did Banks imply that you could eat as much healthy food as you want. Yes a calorie is a calorie but simply telling people they can eat what ever as long as they stay within their calorie allotment isn't going to teach people that are here to learn the importance of eating healthy in the long run.

stormieweather

I think, my personal opinion mind you, that a calorie IS a calorie in the same way that a dog is just a dog. It's true, but oh my gosh, there is a hellova lot of difference in dog types....size, fur, physique, temperament, attitude, etc. And there is a huge difference in calorie types as in, it's nutritional content and how it affects your health.

Funnydream

"That is assuming you want to eat a higher fat diet than you do now."

Canstey - thanks, but no thanks! I couldn't imagine anything worse. For some reason eating foods high in fat and salt makes me feel queasy and I am very happily established on my healthy diet. I simply noticed the difference after a small increase - but, as you rightly, I am sure, point out this is more likely to be due to other variables rather than fat intake alone.

Thanks for the answer. Much appreciated.

ccgisme

Is a calorie gained from, say, fats, weighted more in terms of weight gain than a calorie gained from, say, veg? I have a feeling (no empirical evidence here) that this is the case.

I'm no medical expert, but I have to agree with Banks answer to this. The body processes macronutrients differently. A theoretical calorie is a theoretical calorie, but the four calories from a gram of sugar and the nine calories from a gram of fat are going to have different effects on the body. Fat and protein won't produce a spike in blood sugar or elevate insulin in response to the increase in blood sugar.

My understanding of the science here is fuzzy, but increases in insulin may eventually lead to increases in fat storage. (Think gylcemic index here.)

I know from personal experience that I gain weight when I eat starchy carbs and foods high in sugar and I lose weight when I eat vegetables - also carbs. Even if my total calories stay in the same basic range (+/-200 cal).

annecolorgreen

I think that both are true. That may seem paradoxical, but I don't believe it is.

I also think that each BODY is unique in how it reacts to different types of food/exercise/calories. We have to find the correct formula for our body.

~~anne

Funnydream

Annecolourgreen - I think you are correct. And that's exactly what I'm trying to do, find my body specific formula.

Gale - C. Thanks for that. I think that *for some people* it's a very delicate balance, and we have to get it *just* right for us as individuals. At least you know what formula works for you.

canstey

I don't believe simply "A calorie is a calorie" but rather in the scientific method of hypothesis and test. From my research into real studies rather than simply personal or anecdotal evidence, the data supports "a calorie is a calorie" when it comes to weight management. This is not the same thing is a healthy diet and blurring the line between the two is what the entire diet industry does to make you think "Not all calories are the same and therefore if you eat <insert diet plan here> you don't need to count calories if you stick to our foods."

Here are four links to studies that were done comparing different diet types (low/high protein, carbs). All four show that regardless of diet type, weight loss between groups was the same. Now these studies were more about if one diet type made people healthier for the few things they were measuring but be careful about jumping to any conclusions. They all simply started to look at the differences but never followed people from overweight to ideal weight to see if the initial differences were maintained at ideal weight or did both groups wind up in the same place.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/81/6/1298
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/short/ajcn.2008.27326v1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15632335
http://www.annals.org/content/140/10/778.full.pdf+html

The following link is a personal favorite because it is a study to see if fructose in the diet is worse than complex carbohydrates. Now the study isn't about weight management at all but many low-carb proponents claim High Fructose Corn Syrup is directly responsible for obesity as if it is more fattening than the calories it contains. The study shows that the participants did not gain weight when given 25% of their maintenance calories as fructose (equivalent of 2-4 cans of soda a day). The health markers the study was looking at were worse but that wasn't the point of this thread.

http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/22238/1/IND44124650.pdf

So when someone claims that not all calories are the same when it comes to weight management, ask them for a study or two that shows this.

recipe4success

I don't believe simply "A calorie is a calorie" but rather in the scientific method of hypothesis and test. From my research into real studies rather than simply personal or anecdotal evidence, the data supports "a calorie is a calorie" when it comes to weight management. This is not the same thing is a healthy diet and blurring the line between the two is what the entire diet industry does to make you think "Not all calories are the same and therefore if you eat <insert diet plan here> you don't need to count calories if you stick to our foods."

Here are four links to studies that were done comparing different diet types (low/high protein, carbs). All four show that regardless of diet type, weight loss between groups was the same. Now these studies were more about if one diet type made people healthier for the few things they were measuring but be careful about jumping to any conclusions. They all simply started to look at the differences but never followed people from overweight to ideal weight to see if the initial differences were maintained at ideal weight or did both groups wind up in the same place.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/81/6/1298
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/short/ajcn.2008.27326v1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15632335
http://www.annals.org/content/140/10/778.full.pdf+html

The following link is a personal favorite because it is a study to see if fructose in the diet is worse than complex carbohydrates. Now the study isn't about weight management at all but many low-carb proponents claim High Fructose Corn Syrup is directly responsible for obesity as if it is more fattening than the calories it contains. The study shows that the participants did not gain weight when given 25% of their maintenance calories as fructose (equivalent of 2-4 cans of soda a day). The health markers the study was looking at were worse but that wasn't the point of this thread.

http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/22238/1/IND44124650.pdf

So when someone claims that not all calories are the same when it comes to weight management, ask them for a study or two that shows this.

Totally agree, excellent post and good articles.

July24Lioness

I think you are mixing weight management and healthy eating too much and it leads people to assume incorrectly that if you eat healthy foods, calories don't count. This is what low-carb diet proponents do; imply without ever actually stating it that the types of food matter more than calories.

Calories in - calories out isn't a concept, it is a fact from physics. There is some small amount of difference in calories consumed by digestion between different types of food but it isn't worth taking into account and saying "Since nuts take more calories to digest, I should only count 90% of the calories in nuts but 100% of the calories in the twinkie". Study after study shows that when calories are controlled, regardless of the quality of the calories weight management results are the same and they did not attempt to compensate for difference in energy required to digest. It just doesn't make enough of a difference. There are some studies that suggest the breakdown of macro nutrients may have an impact on body composition when calories are the same but they are incomplete to come to that conclusion yet.

I totally agree with you that healthy balanced eating is the way to go but that does not negate that eating an excess of calories, whether healthy or not, leads to weight gain. If you follow "Calories always count and they all count the same" you will not be lead astray even if that is only a 99% accurate statement. Then you combine that with "Eating healthy foods and minimizing the amount of processed foods in your diet will help you have a healthier body" and you have a winning combination.

If you think a calorie is a calorie, is a calorie then explain this to me..............

Why is it that when I do a low carb plan that I can eat upwards of 1800 - 2000 calories a day of high fat, moderate protein, low carb and lose weight effortlessly????? I barely exercised here.............

And why is it is I do a 1200 calorie with low fat, lower protein and higher carbs that I gain weight???? And exercised a lot here.

I believe in Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. It is really worth the read!!

stormieweather

I'm going to disagree about the HFCS - http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

Kasuko

You guys are on way too much of a "this side vs that side" debate here. Which is totally unnecessary because the original explanation didn't state a side.

What you have to realize is weight loss exists right in the middle. Once you go to one of the extreme's the other side's argument breaks. That's because both sides are using far to simple of an explanation to truly explain weight loss, in fact there really is no way to explain weight loss, but thats OK!

When we live in the middle, healthy foods + healthy deficit all the theories hold up well enough and that is all that counts. No one can say that as long as you count calories the food doesn't matter and no one can say as long as you eat healthy foods the calories don't matter. This isn't a fast and hard equation. This is a delicate bodily function, one governed by several factors that aren't even being considered here. How many of you are considering the amount of protein required to build hair, fingernails and skin cells etc?

We all have to agree to disagree here. We all have to live in the middle and admit that healthy food AND healthy intake is the best way to lose weight (I'm talking real weight here).

PJilly

You guys are on way too much of a "this side vs that side" debate here. Which is totally unnecessary because the original explanation didn't state a side.

What you have to realize is weight loss exists right in the middle. Once you go to one of the extreme's the other side's argument breaks. That's because both sides are using far to simple of an explanation to truly explain weight loss, in fact there really is no way to explain weight loss, but thats OK!

When we live in the middle, healthy foods + healthy deficit all the theories hold up well enough and that is all that counts. No one can say that as long as you count calories the food doesn't matter and no one can say as long as you eat healthy foods the calories don't matter. This isn't a fast and hard equation. This is a delicate bodily function, one governed by several factors that aren't even being considered here. How many of you are considering the amount of protein required to build hair, fingernails and skin cells etc?

We all have to agree to disagree here. We all have to live in the middle and admit that healthy food AND healthy intake is the best way to lose weight (I'm talking real weight here).

I am going to agree to agree with you! :happy:

canstey

If you think a calorie is a calorie, is a calorie then explain this to me..............

Why is it that when I do a low carb plan that I can eat upwards of 1800 - 2000 calories a day of high fat, moderate protein, low carb and lose weight effortlessly????? I barely exercised here.............

And why is it is I do a 1200 calorie with low fat, lower protein and higher carbs that I gain weight???? And exercised a lot here.

I believe in Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. It is really worth the read!!

By your own admission you are not a healthy person and therefore your personal situation does not apply to healthy people. Your argument is equivalent to a person allergic to citrus claiming "Citrus fruit makes me ill so therefore no one should eat citrus and to get your vitamins you should eat something else if you want to be healthy and prevent vitamin deficiencies."

Gary Taubes is a very interesting case. He does have some good points to say about some subjects like exercise isn't the direct cause of weight loss or even necessary for weight loss but he is one of the worst offenders at distortion and blurring the line between weight management and healthy eating. He blasts scientists of the '60s for claiming heart disease is caused by high fat because they looked where heart disease was highest and then assumed their diets were the cause because they were almost all higher in fat. So he correctly argues that correlation is not sufficient for cause and effect but then uses correlation himself to prove low-carb is a better diet by looking and the diet of lean people and saying it must be their diet.

Here is a link to a paper Gary Taubes wrote defending Good Calories, Bad Calories from a book review turned diatribe from Dr. Bray about how Taubes book is full of junk. If you read the defense with a neutral stance, you can see how Taubes dances around without actually defending himself.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/taubes-response-to-bray-ob-reviews.pdf

Two highlights from the defense.

Regarding obesity, Bray makes his first critical factual error in the second
sentence of his abstract. He asserts that I believe 'that you can gain
weight and become obese without a positive energy balance'. This
statement implies that I do not believe in the first law of thermodynamics.
It could not be further from the truth. In GCBC, I point out that the first
law – energy conservation – tells us nothing about what causes obesity.

So here Taubes does state that he does believe in calories in - calories out and is not arguing against it.

Bray repeatedly dismisses my observation that positive energy balance
tells us nothing meaningful about weight regulation by referring to it with
the rhetorically loaded phrase 'calories don't count'. He then cites
Kinsell's 1964 article –'Calories Do Count'– as showing 'clearly' that
calories, not nutrient composition, play the critical factor in weight loss.
Bray neglects to add Kinsell's own observation that carbohydraterestricted
diets inhibit hunger in a way that calorie-restricted diets do not.

So to defend his position that not all calories are the same, he references the quintessential book on the fact that all calories are the same and simply states: "But low-carb diets are easier to stick with" and that appears to be true from research but again has nothing to do with not all calories are the same.

So the only argument Taubes has left and goes on and on about it is that since he agrees calories are calories and it takes eating more calories than expending to gain weight, it must be that certain diets change a person's BMR so they burn fewer calories than expected. Everything he says in the defense is about how fat people are eating the same total calories so their must be something different in their BMR and he constantly points at their diet as the cause of hormonal imbalance. This is a totally worthy sentiment that should be tested. Taubes could do his own study in less than six months to prove this and show the world he is right but he hasn't. The studies that do test the effect of different diets like the 5 links I posted before and especially the Fructose study link, show that diet does not change the BMR of a healthy person because the subjects did not have to change their calorie intake to adjust for a lowering BMR or a hormonal imbalance.

Edit-
I would like to add that there is nothing to indicate different people don't have different BMR for the same weight, musculature, and frame size and there seems to be plenty of evidence that they do. My point is those who argue that it is diet that causes this difference could easily prove they are right by studying whether a person's BMR changes if they change their diet. This is a really simple and easily done study. All studies I have found that effectively do this but are not directly measuring BMR indicate that diet does not change BMR. So it is totally consistent to show that a calorie is a calorie and that two people that are very similar in build and lifestyle eating the same number of calories have different weights. Taubes does ask the right question "Why does this happen?" but then starts theorizing about things that studies indicate are not true and selling books rather than doing real research to answer the question.

PJilly

All very interesting...