calories in calories out...are you sure?

Iwishyouwell · October 2013

Your childish rudeness aside...

Isn't a calorie a calorie? Not taking into account personal health and nutrition (which Jonny wisely mentioned), shouldn't I, according to the theory that all calories are equal, be able to eat 3000 kcal in poptarts and lose the exact same amount if I ate that same 3k in salmon and spinach? Which was entirely the crux of my point, since this thread is questioning whether "calories in calories out" encompasses the totality of weight loss (note: not nutrition or overall health).

jonnythan · October 2013

For weight loss 3000 calories is 3000 calories.

Weight is not all that matters. No one says it is.

darkangel45422 · October 2013

Actually, carbs ARE important. The OP has specifically stated that, everything else being the same, weight only was lost when carbs were cut. Isn't it more likely that carbs matter than that the OP was doing something else differently when the OP has specifically stated all else was the same?

Carbs are nothing but energy; unlike protein and fat, which are used for other purposes within the body as well, carbs do nothing but fuel us. And they're entirely unnecessary since you can use fat as fuel (thus why our bodies store excess glucose as fat). I believe only the brain needs actual glucose (or ketones if you're in ketosis), and the liver can produce pretty much whatever your body actually needs. So it makes perfect sense that if you're eating fewer carbs you'd be more likely to lose weight than with more carbs since your body would resort to using fat cells for fuel rather than the glucose swimming in your blood from the carbs.

Not saying you need to cut carbs to lose weight; obviously people have had success eating carbs and tons of them. But there's a lot of information showing that not all calories are made the same; it's NOT just calories in calories out.

mmapags · October 2013

Further proof that this poster may want to consider working on reading comprehension.

Mr_Knight · October 2013

If "everything else" was the same, that means the OP cut calories.

Hence no mystery on subsequent weight loss.

Iwishyouwell · October 2013

I love that you are throwing the poor "reading comprehension" insult around...

When I am merely addressing the point of THIS thread. The OP of this thread enquired as to whether the "calories in calories out" equation was so simple, saying that they lowered carbs and the scale moved again.

This thread was never about "nutrition", or any other "matters". The OP inquired about macronutrients and calories specifically. I kept the conversation to the original topic brought up by the OP, you create a straw man, and then accuse me of having poor reading comprehension because I refuse to play with said straw man.

Now, moving again beyond the childish rudeness and back to the point of THIS thread...

Will 3000 kcal of poptarts cause the same amount of weight loss as 3000 kcal of salmon and spinach? If it indeed true that all calories are equal, would this be the case for, lets try this again, weight loss?

jonnythan · October 2013

I didn't say anything about reading comprehension. Don't conflate me with others please.

Anyway, yes weight loss will be about the same eating Pop Tarts versus spinach and salmon at the same calorie intake. How much of that loss is fat will differ a bit.

Knitwit116 · October 2013

A calorie is a calorie, but your body will do different things with a calorie (store, or burn it) depending on what it's effect is on your insulin. Insulin is the key to fat storage, that's why lowcarbers may have an easier time losing more weight. They turn off the fat storage hormone. So all calories are not equal. Go to Dr. Peter Attiea's site, he will explain the science in great detail. Or read. "Good Caloreis Bad Calores." There is an actual study, where low carb dieters burned an extra 300 calories per day than a low-fat group eating the exact same calories. And lost more weight. And lowered their triglycerides, and blood pressure, and raised their good HDL cholesterol. It's hard science, believe me. Just try it and experiment with yourself.

"The traditional model of obesity, the so called “calories-in-calories-out” model, says that obesity is caused by the energy input terms exceeding the energy output terms. While it is mathematically true that someone who has gained weight has consumed more energy than they have expended, using the First Law to explain why someone gains weight is of little help. The First Law is descriptive but not explanative.”

The mistake most folks make when using the First Law to explain weight gain (versus using the First Law to describe weight gain) is that they lose sight of the fact that these variables – input, Resting energy expenditure, Thermic effect of food (TEF) – the amount of energy required to process and digest food, and activity energy expenditure – are linked. They are dependent on each other. They don’t exist in isolation.

Proponents of the Alternative Hypothesis (more fat less carbs) argue that intake (i.e., food) plays a role on hormones and enzymes in the body that have a resulting impact on energy output, and even subsequent input. For example, eating one food over another can increase or decrease appetite, increase or decrease REE, increase or decrease AEE, and even impact TEF. While the effect on each of these may be modest in isolation, even small changes over the course of days can result in significant changes over months or years."
http://eatingacademy.com/books-and-articles/good-science-bad-interpretation

Mr_Knight · October 2013

No, no, no, no, no.

That Taubsian fantasy has been disproven over and over and over and over again.

Knitwit116 · October 2013

"Energy density (calories) of food does matter, for sure, but what matters much more is what that food does in and to our bodies. Will the calories we consume create an environment in our bodies where we want to consume more energy than we expend? Will the calories we consume create an environment in which our bodies prefer to store excess nutrients as fat rather than mobilize fat? These are the choices we make every time we put something in our mouth.

Our bodies are complex and dynamic systems with more feedback loops than even the most elaborate Tianhe-1A computer. This means that two people can eat the exact same things and do the exact same amount of exercise and yet store different amounts of fat. Does it mean they have violated the First Law of Thermodynamics? Of course not.

Similarly, genetically identical twins can eat different macronutrient diets (i.e., differing amounts of fat, protein, carbohydrates) of the same number of calories, while doing a constant amount of exercise, and accumulate different amounts of fat. Does this violate the First Law of Thermodynamics? Nope.

What you eat (along with other factors, like your genetic makeup, of course) impacts how your body partitions and stores fat. Insulin, while not the only factor involved in this process, is probably at the top of the list. When you eat foods that have the double whammy of increasing insulin levels AND increasing your cell’s resistance to insulin, your body prioritizes fat storage over fat utilization. Remember the great medical disconnect – no one disputes that insulin is the most singularly important hormone for causing fat cells to accumulate fat. Somehow the dispute centers on what causes people (full of billions of fat cells) to accumulate fat.

All calories are not created equally: The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body." -from Peter Attia, M.D.

Knitwit116 · October 2013

Anyone who is curious about this, like the original poster was since they obviously had experienced the effects of this first hand, should read some of the work by Gary Taubes, Michael Eades, M.D., Dr. Robert Lustig, and Peter Attia, M.D. They are all trying to knock some holes into the sacred dogma of "a calorie is a calorie." If it were really that simple then anyone with a third-grade math ability would be able to lose weight. The human body, we are learning, is a much more nuanced and complicated metabolic machine than we thought. And unfortunately we have millions of capable, intelligent overweight peopl in this country who struggle with obesity not because they are lazy or don't understand and count calories, but they have been given exactly the wrong way to eat via the food pyramid- which says to load up on grains! The very thing (yes, even whole grain) that will flood your body with insulin. The science on this is very interesting and may just surprise you if you can let go of predetermined biases, for just a moment.

asummersbreeze · October 2013

You ar so right on carbs holding water... that is a trick .. its cal in and cal out that is the right way.. I did Scarsdale diet low carb ect.. and gained it back it fell off like nothing but came back just as fast...

Achrya · October 2013

Oh.

mmapags · October 2013

Yeah, that was me with the suggestion of working on reading comprehension and this post proves my point for me, doesn't it.

mmapags · October 2013

Lol, wondering when Taubes and Lolstig would show up. Great meme!

Iwishyouwell · October 2013

No, you absolutely didn't and I appreciated your tact and maturity the entire conversation. I simply clicked quote on the wrong post, meaning to quote the "Further proof that this poster may want to consider working on reading comprehension" nonsense. I apologize to you.

calories in calories out...are you sure?

Replies

Categories