Calorie is NOT a calorie: research

ell_v131

Hi all,
I came across this interesting research and wanted to read and understand better, but the truth is it is a bit too technical and scientific for me, considering english is not even my first language.

So I was hoping some of you avid researchers could have a look and give me your 2 cents...

Studies are here:
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565999
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888

neanderthin

A calorie is a unit of energy. /thread. If you mean that different macro's effect the body differently, they yes that's true.

ell_v131

A calorie is a unit of energy. /thread. If you mean that different macro's effect the body differently, they yes that's true.

well I am not well educated on this, but especially this study http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9 suggest that you can achieve different results on 2 diets consisting of same amount of calories, but different macro composition. It specifically says that there can be a "metabolic advantage" to a low carb diet.

I just found this interesting because majority of people on here including myself believe in the calories in/calories out concept, and this is opposed to it.

neanderthin

A calorie is a unit of energy. /thread. If you mean that different macro's effect the body differently, they yes that's true.

well I am not well educated on this, but especially this study http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9 suggest that you can achieve different results on 2 diets consisting of same amount of calories, but different macro composition. It specifically says that there can be a "metabolic advantage" to a low carb diet.

I just found this interesting because majority of people on here including myself believe in the calories in/calories out concept, and this is opposed to it.

That Journal and the authors Feinman and Fine advocates a low carb diet, they also wrote a dissertation length statement to the government advocating a low carb diet. The have a flawed theory based on the differentiating effects of macro's on body composition.......they are like dogs with a bone. In the extreme there is a metabolic advantage comparing a high protein diet with a very high carb diet and most of the difference is associated with TEF and water weight, that's it. When protein is held constant, then we're dealing with just water weight or poor clinical conditions......Google doubly labeled water.......doesn't get much better than that for comparison purposes.

ell_v131

A calorie is a unit of energy. /thread. If you mean that different macro's effect the body differently, they yes that's true.

well I am not well educated on this, but especially this study http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9 suggest that you can achieve different results on 2 diets consisting of same amount of calories, but different macro composition. It specifically says that there can be a "metabolic advantage" to a low carb diet.

I just found this interesting because majority of people on here including myself believe in the calories in/calories out concept, and this is opposed to it.

That Journal and the authors Feinman and Fine advocates a low carb diet, they also wrote a dissertation length statement to the government advocating a low carb diet. The have a flawed theory based on the differentiating effects of macro's on body composition.......they are like dogs with a bone.

Would you be able to elaborate what is flawed about their theory? I can't quite get through all the technical speak in the journal.

neanderthin

I edited my previous post.....you were to quick. lol Basically the conservation of energy is not flawed, never has been and never will be.

kelly_e_montana

Thanks. There is a lot of emerging research on this topic. I am interested to see where it leads.

Whenever someone tells me to believe something because it's science, I remind them that what we know scientifically changes over time. When I was younger, we weren't supposed to eat eggs,and we were supposed to eat lots of pasta, replace butter with margarine, use fat free/sugar free substitutes for everything, and eat meat sparingly. We were even supposed to avoid avocados and nuts because they were too fattening. How times have changed!

neanderthin

Thanks. There is a lot of emerging research on this topic. I am interested to see where it leads.

Whenever someone tells me to believe something because it's science, I remind them that what we know scientifically changes over time. When I was younger, we weren't supposed to eat eggs,and we were supposed to eat lots of pasta, replace butter with margarine, use fat free/sugar free substitutes for everything, and eat meat sparingly. We were even supposed to avoid avocados and nuts because they were too fattening. How times have changed!

I wouldn't consider that science........what we know now about the issies you brought up were known then.....it was policy makers that for some unknown reason decided to take the nation in a different direction, nutritionally speaking.

livingleanlivingclean

Thanks. There is a lot of emerging research on this topic. I am interested to see where it leads.

Whenever someone tells me to believe something because it's science, I remind them that what we know scientifically changes over time. When I was younger, we weren't supposed to eat eggs,and we were supposed to eat lots of pasta, replace butter with margarine, use fat free/sugar free substitutes for everything, and eat meat sparingly. We were even supposed to avoid avocados and nuts because they were too fattening. How times have changed!

I wouldn't consider that science........what we know now about the issies you brought up were known then.....it was policy makers that for some unknown reason decided to take the nation in a different direction, nutritionally speaking.

That was funding from the grain industry...not science

kelly_e_montana

Thanks. There is a lot of emerging research on this topic. I am interested to see where it leads.

Whenever someone tells me to believe something because it's science, I remind them that what we know scientifically changes over time. When I was younger, we weren't supposed to eat eggs,and we were supposed to eat lots of pasta, replace butter with margarine, use fat free/sugar free substitutes for everything, and eat meat sparingly. We were even supposed to avoid avocados and nuts because they were too fattening. How times have changed!

I wouldn't consider that science........what we know now about the issies you brought up were known then.....it was policy makers that for some unknown reason decided to take the nation in a different direction, nutritionally speaking.

Some of it. I agree with what I think you are getting to regarding building the American diet on grain products (economic motives).

Regardless, "science" in all areas (not just nutrition) changes over time as we learn more, which is my point. I am a former research methods instructor at the college level.

You would be naive to think the grain industry didn't fund studies to their benefit.

BrainyBurro

That was funding from the grain industry...not science

i am so sick and tired of the food conspiracy nonsense on here.

DebbieLyn63

OP- thank you for those links. The first one explains well how different macros affect our bodies differently. I think it also depends on our individual bodies, and how they respond differently. Some people react to high carb diets with an increase in metabolic function, and others have a decrease.
I understand the difference in those that are insulin resistant. In those people, a higher carb diet tends to slow their metabolism because they can't efficiently process the extra blood sugar/insulin, and the result is a higher amount of stored fat, particularly in the abdominal area. I know this to be too for myself, just from the year and a half that I have been tracking my food on here, and the results I have had at various times and different macro percentages.

I have also known many people who are naturally very thin and have trouble keeping weight on. The one common thing I have noticed, is that they have a very high carb diet. They all ate large amounts of simple sugar. This baffled me for quite some time, because I know that when MY sugar intake increases, I will gain weight. The opposite seemed to hold true for them. When they DECREASED their sugar intake, their weight would increase.

I know this makes no sense scientifically, and I wish I could find a study explaining this phenomenon, but I can only conclude that different bodies react differently to different types of food.

This can be the biggest reason for the arguments on the forums about Low carb vs IIFYM vs Cals in/cals out.
We are all basing our opinions on our OWN experiences, and our own experiences can be quite different from someone else's.

I have also likened this concept to the different octane levels in gasoline. A higher grade fuel burns cleaner, but doesn't take you as far as a lower grade fuel. A gallon of one type fuel is not equal to a gallon of another type fuel, when it comes to gas mileage.

neanderthin

Thanks. There is a lot of emerging research on this topic. I am interested to see where it leads.

Whenever someone tells me to believe something because it's science, I remind them that what we know scientifically changes over time. When I was younger, we weren't supposed to eat eggs,and we were supposed to eat lots of pasta, replace butter with margarine, use fat free/sugar free substitutes for everything, and eat meat sparingly. We were even supposed to avoid avocados and nuts because they were too fattening. How times have changed!

I wouldn't consider that science........what we know now about the issies you brought up were known then.....it was policy makers that for some unknown reason decided to take the nation in a different direction, nutritionally speaking.

Some of it. I agree with what I think you are getting to regarding building the American diet on grain products (economic motives).

Regardless, "science" in all areas (not just nutrition) changes over time as we learn more.

Yes I agree, but it generally doesn't make a 360 simply because of the mountains of clinical research that has marked a given path.......but it does correct itself for sure, that's what makes science the only thing that we know for sure.....everything else is belief and agenda.

neanderthin

OP- thank you for those links. The first one explains well how different macros affect our bodies differently. I think it also depends on our individual bodies, and how they respond differently. Some people react to high carb diets with an increase in metabolic function, and others have a decrease.
I understand the difference in those that are insulin resistant. In those people, a higher carb diet tends to slow their metabolism because they can't efficiently process the extra blood sugar/insulin, and the result is a higher amount of stored fat, particularly in the abdominal area. I know this to be too for myself, just from the year and a half that I have been tracking my food on here, and the results I have had at various times and different macro percentages.

I have also known many people who are naturally very thin and have trouble keeping weight on. The one common thing I have noticed, is that they have a very high carb diet. They all ate large amounts of simple sugar. This baffled me for quite some time, because I know that when MY sugar intake increases, I will gain weight. The opposite seemed to hold true for them. When they DECREASED their sugar intake, their weight would increase.

I know this makes no sense scientifically, and I wish I could find a study explaining this phenomenon, but I can only conclude that different bodies react differently to different types of food.

This can be the biggest reason for the arguments on the forums about Low carb vs IIFYM vs Cals in/cals out.
We are all basing our opinions on our OWN experiences, and our own experiences can be quite different from someone else's.

I have also likened this concept to the different octane levels in gasoline. A higher grade fuel burns cleaner, but doesn't take you as far as a lower grade fuel. A gallon of one type fuel is not equal to a gallon of another type fuel, when it comes to gas mileage.

Your right, everyone will react differently but all dysfunction or mystery if you like is accounted for on the outside of the energy balance equation.......we may not know, but our body does and makes those adjustments and why people with PCOS, thyroid, lupis, diabetes will find it more difficult.

ell_v131

I edited my previous post.....you were to quick. lol Basically the conservation of energy is not flawed, never has been and never will be.

Thanks I'll look into the things you mention.

wild_wild_life

Bump for after coffee

BrainyBurro

Thanks. There is a lot of emerging research on this topic. I am interested to see where it leads.

Whenever someone tells me to believe something because it's science, I remind them that what we know scientifically changes over time. When I was younger, we weren't supposed to eat eggs,and we were supposed to eat lots of pasta, replace butter with margarine, use fat free/sugar free substitutes for everything, and eat meat sparingly. We were even supposed to avoid avocados and nuts because they were too fattening. How times have changed!

I wouldn't consider that science........what we know now about the issies you brought up were known then.....it was policy makers that for some unknown reason decided to take the nation in a different direction, nutritionally speaking.

Some of it. I agree with what I think you are getting to regarding building the American diet on grain products (economic motives).

Regardless, "science" in all areas (not just nutrition) changes over time as we learn more, which is my point. I am a former research methods instructor at the college level.

You would be naive to think the grain industry didn't fund studies to their benefit.

science doesn't change.

interpretation of results and theories change.

more so in the biological sciences and less so in the physical sciences.

when you are talking about energy conservation, that's physics and you can sleep well at night that it's not going to change.

when you are talking about tremendously complicated organisms like humans and how all of the various internal processes work and interact with each other, then you have to understand that we really are only beginning to learn about them. it's really difficult to develop a comprehensive understanding of "everything" at once and scientific studies can really only deal with a handful of narrowly focused variables at a time (or the resulting data collection/analysis explodes in complexity). it's also really easy for researchers to construct studies designed to support their hypotheses (confirmation bias), so you need lots and lots of research and experiments and studies to really understand what's going on and make sure that no "bad science" is creeping into our overall understanding.

the nutrition advice given in the 70's and 80's and 90's and 00's and even today is often part research, part theory, and part conjecture. we just don't know for sure yet about much of that stuff, so people make "best guesses" and give that out as advice. sometimes it's shown to be flawed and revised.

neanderthin

Thanks. There is a lot of emerging research on this topic. I am interested to see where it leads.

Whenever someone tells me to believe something because it's science, I remind them that what we know scientifically changes over time. When I was younger, we weren't supposed to eat eggs,and we were supposed to eat lots of pasta, replace butter with margarine, use fat free/sugar free substitutes for everything, and eat meat sparingly. We were even supposed to avoid avocados and nuts because they were too fattening. How times have changed!

I wouldn't consider that science........what we know now about the issies you brought up were known then.....it was policy makers that for some unknown reason decided to take the nation in a different direction, nutritionally speaking.

Some of it. I agree with what I think you are getting to regarding building the American diet on grain products (economic motives).

Regardless, "science" in all areas (not just nutrition) changes over time as we learn more, which is my point. I am a former research methods instructor at the college level.

You would be naive to think the grain industry didn't fund studies to their benefit.

science doesn't change.

interpretation of results and theories change.

more so in the biological sciences and less so in the physical sciences.

when you are talking about energy conservation, that's physics and you can sleep well at night that it's not going to change.

when you are talking about tremendously complicated organisms like humans and how all of the various internal processes work and interact with each other, then you have to understand that we really are only beginning to learn about them. it's really difficult to develop a comprehensive understanding of "everything" at once and scientific studies can really only deal with a handful of narrowly focused variables at a time (or the resulting data collection/analysis explodes in complexity). it's also really easy for researchers to construct studies designed to support their hypotheses (confirmation bias), so you need lots and lots of research and experiments and studies to really understand what's going on and make sure that no "bad science" is creeping into our overall understanding.

the nutrition advice given in the 70's and 80's and 90's and 00's and even today is often part research, part theory, and part conjecture. we just don't know for sure yet about much of that stuff, so people make "best guesses" and give that out as advice. sometimes it's shown to be flawed and revised.

QFT

vwbug86

Thermodynamics is a law, like gravity it will never change.

ronrstaats

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics - http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

geebusuk

A calorie is a unit of energy. /thread. If you mean that different macro's effect the body differently, they yes that's true.

This, this and this.
Generally I get irked by the 'end of thread' stuff, but it shouldn't need to go any further .

well I am not well educated on this, but especially this study http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9 suggest that you can achieve different results on 2 diets consisting of same amount of calories, but different macro composition. It specifically says that there can be a "metabolic advantage" to a low carb diet.

I just found this interesting because majority of people on here including myself believe in the calories in/calories out concept, and this is opposed to it.

That your body may work differently eating food DOES NOT discount calories in/calories out.
It merely changes the 'calories out'.
For instance, it's fairly accepted I believe that the body typically burns more calories when dealing with protein - so that's a first thing - if you ate purely protein your body would have a +X% calories on the 'calories out side' vs other foods to start it off.

This offers some very well researched resources on the subject:
http://evidencemag.com/why-calories-count/

Fullsterkur_woman

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics - http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

Right, so as geebusuk states just after you, those authors are playing with semantics. The reality is "a calorie is a calorie"; it's just that some engines (metabolic pathways) are more efficient than others.

DebbieLyn63

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics - http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

Right, so as geebusuk states just after you, those authors are playing with semantics. The reality is "a calorie is a calorie"; it's just that some engines (metabolic pathways) are more efficient than others.

Yeah, this is like the debate over whether muscle weighs more than fat. one lb of muscle weighs the same as one lb of fat, however one lb of muscle takes up less room.

A calorie is a unit of heat, so in that sense, a calorie is a calorie. But it takes more energy to burn a gram of protein than it does to burn a gram of Carbohydrate, so result on weight loss or gain may be different. And how our individual bodies process the nutrients differently, can have a different effect.

wild_wild_life

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics - http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

Right, so as geebusuk states just after you, those authors are playing with semantics. The reality is "a calorie is a calorie"; it's just that some engines (metabolic pathways) are more efficient than others.

Everyone is playing with semantics. If we accept this interpretation of "a calorie is a calorie" proposed by the authors -- "weight change in hypocaloric diets is independent of macronutrient composition", would anyone actually agree with this?

BrainyBurro

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics - http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

Right, so as geebusuk states just after you, those authors are playing with semantics. The reality is "a calorie is a calorie"; it's just that some engines (metabolic pathways) are more efficient than others.

Yeah, this is like the debate over whether muscle weighs more than fat. one lb of muscle weighs the same as one lb of fat, however one lb of muscle takes up less room.

A calorie is a unit of heat, so in that sense, a calorie is a calorie. But it takes more energy to burn a gram of protein than it does to burn a gram of Carbohydrate, so result on weight loss or gain may be different. And how our individual bodies process the nutrients differently, can have a different effect.

the difference is negligible.

and considering the error margins allowed in package labeling, those inherent in using an activity calculator or incorrectly calibrated HRM, and the statistical nature of BMR calculations, the difference becomes essentially invisible.

this is why it's not worth discussing. it has literally no discernible impact on your weight loss results.

people who get hung up on the fact that there are tiny little variables like these in the calculations that don't really affect the results are not seeing the forest through the trees.

Fullsterkur_woman

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics - http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

Right, so as geebusuk states just after you, those authors are playing with semantics. The reality is "a calorie is a calorie"; it's just that some engines (metabolic pathways) are more efficient than others.

Yeah, this is like the debate over whether muscle weighs more than fat. one lb of muscle weighs the same as one lb of fat, however one lb of muscle takes up less room.

A calorie is a unit of heat, so in that sense, a calorie is a calorie. But it takes more energy to burn a gram of protein than it does to burn a gram of Carbohydrate, so result on weight loss or gain may be different. And how our individual bodies process the nutrients differently, can have a different effect.

So, you're agreeing with what I said.

ndj1979

That was funding from the grain industry...not science

i am so sick and tired of the food conspiracy nonsense on here.

I will second that...

QuietBloom

A calorie is a unit of energy. /thread. If you mean that different macro's effect the body differently, they yes that's true.

well I am not well educated on this, but especially this study http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9 suggest that you can achieve different results on 2 diets consisting of same amount of calories, but different macro composition. It specifically says that there can be a "metabolic advantage" to a low carb diet.

I just found this interesting because majority of people on here including myself believe in the calories in/calories out concept, and this is opposed to it.

That is not apposition to the calories in calories out concept. CICO refers to the thermodynamic law that states you will lose weight it if you eat less than you burn and vise versa. What you eat matters for your final results, and that is why it is important to meet your carb, fat and protein goals. But it is not necessary to lose weight.

QuietBloom

Thanks. There is a lot of emerging research on this topic. I am interested to see where it leads.

Whenever someone tells me to believe something because it's science, I remind them that what we know scientifically changes over time. When I was younger, we weren't supposed to eat eggs,and we were supposed to eat lots of pasta, replace butter with margarine, use fat free/sugar free substitutes for everything, and eat meat sparingly. We were even supposed to avoid avocados and nuts because they were too fattening. How times have changed!

Those were nutritional recommendations that were not all based on science. That is why it is important to make your own decisions based on primary research. Not articles or blogs.

WhyLime113

I thought this was somehow going to be about the difference between a Calorie (capitalized) and calorie.
I'll be on my way now.

ell_v131

A calorie is a unit of energy. /thread. If you mean that different macro's effect the body differently, they yes that's true.

This, this and this.
Generally I get irked by the 'end of thread' stuff, but it shouldn't need to go any further .

well I am not well educated on this, but especially this study http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9 suggest that you can achieve different results on 2 diets consisting of same amount of calories, but different macro composition. It specifically says that there can be a "metabolic advantage" to a low carb diet.

I just found this interesting because majority of people on here including myself believe in the calories in/calories out concept, and this is opposed to it.

That your body may work differently eating food DOES NOT discount calories in/calories out.
It merely changes the 'calories out'.
For instance, it's fairly accepted I believe that the body typically burns more calories when dealing with protein - so that's a first thing - if you ate purely protein your body would have a +X% calories on the 'calories out side' vs other foods to start it off.

This offers some very well researched resources on the subject:
http://evidencemag.com/why-calories-count/

Yeah the part about the body burning more while processing protein could be an explanation. And thanks for the link, that was interesting.