Article: A calorie is sometimes not a calorie

pattyproulx

I've looked and didn't see it posted, but thought this was a really great article by Jade Teta (though it is a little long):
http://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/a-calorie-is-sometimes-not-a-calorie

Interesting quote from the article illustrating why strength training is important and why excessive cardio can result in short-term weight loss but is tougher long-term:

There's a study to illustrate the point. It was published in the April 1999 Journal of the American College of Nutrition and looked at two groups of obese subjects put on identical very low calorie diets. One group was assigned an aerobic exercise protocol (walking, biking, or jogging four times per week). The other group was assigned resistance training three times per week and did no aerobic exercise.

After 12 weeks, both groups lost weight. The aerobic group lost 37 pounds, 27 of which was fat and 10 of which was muscle. The resistance-training group lost 32 pounds, and 32 pounds were fat, 0 was muscle. When resting metabolic rate was calculated after the study, the aerobic group was burning 210 fewer calories daily. In contrast, the resistance-training group had increased their metabolism by 63 calories per day.

JillSalus

I read this yesterday and thought it was well writen.

ninerbuff

Thought this would be a food/macro nutrient debate and pleasantly surprised that it wasn't.

When weightloss occurs, people will lose fat and muscle. To what degree will depend on how their nutritional needs are met and the type of exercising they do to attain their loss.

It makes total sense the when someone loses muscle, their metabolic rate will be reduced. It increases when muscle is gained.

What I would have liked to know is if both groups came in "untrained" when the study was conducted.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

vvendy_darling

I would have liked to see a third group that did both aerobic exercise and resistance training.

HardcoreP0rk

The study referenced here mentions an 800 calorie liquid diet. That's a pretty extreme scenario, and leads me to question whether these results can be applied to most patient health and nutrition situations. The study also included 20 subjects, of which 17 were women.

If you lose lean mass, your RMR will go down, so no real revelation there

HardcoreP0rk

I would have liked to see a third group that did both aerobic exercise and resistance training.

I was thinking the same. Alternatively, I'd like to see a cross over study.

stevencloser

I fail to see what that study has to do with calories not being calories though.
If you do cardio you burn more calories than when you don't.
If you do weight training you retain more muscle mass than when not.
They had identical diets.

vvendy_darling

The study referenced here mentions an 800 calorie liquid diet. That's a pretty extreme scenario, and leads me to question whether these results can be applied to most patient health and nutrition situations. The study also included 20 subjects, of which 17 were women.

If you lose lean mass, your RMR will go down, so no real revelation there

Very extreme.

I got distracted. What was the average starting weight of the 20 subjects?

jenjohn324

.

jenjohn324

[I fail to see what that study has to do with calories not being calories though.
If you do cardio you burn more calories than when you don't.
If you do weight training you retain more muscle mass than when not.
They had identical diets.]

The article may be referring to the fact that cardio may burn a lot of calories, but the individuals in the study who were a part of of the aerobic study group were burning fewer calories at rest. A calorie burned was necessary for the decreased metabolic calorie rate. Although weight training doesn't generally burn as many calories as aerobic activity (depending upon the method of weight training used) the improved muscle mass allows for a higher caloric expenditure throughout the day, which may be more beneficial in the long run. I vote a combined workout of aerobic and weight training!

HardcoreP0rk

I fail to see what that study has to do with calories not being calories though.
If you do cardio you burn more calories than when you don't.
If you do weight training you retain more muscle mass than when not.
They had identical diets.

It's a communication error on the part of the OP.

If you read the article, the HEC section tends to discuss the "a calorie is not a calorie" concept

pattyproulx

The study referenced here mentions an 800 calorie liquid diet. That's a pretty extreme scenario, and leads me to question whether these results can be applied to most patient health and nutrition situations. The study also included 20 subjects, of which 17 were women.

If you lose lean mass, your RMR will go down, so no real revelation there

Very extreme.

I got distracted. What was the average starting weight of the 20 subjects?

The diet is definitely extreme, and it would need to be for them to lose 30-40 lbs. The telling part for me is that the resistance training group didn't lose any muscle, and though I expected some difference in RMR, I was surprised at how large that difference was.

pattyproulx

I fail to see what that study has to do with calories not being calories though.
If you do cardio you burn more calories than when you don't.
If you do weight training you retain more muscle mass than when not.
They had identical diets.

Ya, sorry, that was my bad - the article focuses on a lot more than that. I just found that particular part of it interesting, and it really is only a subset of what was discussed.

In this case, he was discussing that looking solely at calories in vs calories out, you'd expect cardio would be the better choice, but that there is a lot more at play to successful long-term weight loss than just calories in vs out.

HardcoreP0rk

Very extreme.

I got distracted. What was the average starting weight of the 20 subjects?

It wasn't listed in the abstract. It only said they were similar in body comp and starting weight, without mentioning whether they were overweight at all. I'd have to assume they were though, to survive an 800 calorie liquid diet...