A calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie

skinnybearerika

Hi everyone! I don't post much (usually lurking the boards like some crazy stalker) but I did come across this article in class today.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28131415/Kekwick-Pawan-1956-Lancet

If you don't want to read the main paper it broken down here in a pretty simple way:

http://www.colinmcnulty.com/blog/2011/11/22/a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/

and before anyone freaks out, I understand you're comfortable with your restriction and eating anything you want as long as you maintain a deficit. I get it. I was there, did that. And I experienced all the normal benefits of losing weight like lower blood pressure, more energy, etc. And here's the evidence pointing that calories DO count (do don't hang me for this)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18425652

I would just really appreciate your opinions on the papers above :flowerforyou: I may make this the subject of my thesis (in a more controlled study) but I want to be sure I address any initial concerns or objections the public may have before I dive into it.

Thank you!!! :blushing:

_Terrapin_

Interesting study from 1956 looking at MACRO's restriction of all 3 MACROS. If you look at diets they typically restrict a MACRO early and slowly re-introduce it later. Interesting read, thanks for posting.

_Zardoz_

If you use the search function you will find numerous bun fights over this. A calorie is a unit of energy that's it.

skinnybearerika

If you use the search function you will find numerous bun fights over this. A calorie is a unit of energy that's it.

Im assuming you didn't read the papers but thank you anyways

Francl27

If you use the search function you will find numerous bun fights over this. A calorie is a unit of energy that's it.

Im assuming you didn't read the papers but thank you anyways

He's right though... There have been dozens of threads about this, all linking similar articles. Go read those.

JTick

Does this also mean that the mile I ran isn't a mile isn't a mile????? :sad:

ValGogo

I'm going to read it, but I am going to agree right away. I used to argue that processed sugar is bad but fruit sugar is good, which essentially is true, but I started to understand that sugar is sugar is sugar and when you cut it out of your diet or limit it (like in fruits) you see a huge difference.

I agree that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If you eat 35 calories from three cups of mesclun greens adn 35 calories from one Trefoil cookie, it's the same amount of energy. However, the trefoil has sugar and fat, etc. so in the end the lettuce is better, but the lettuce still counts.

Hornsby

However, the trefoil has sugar and fat, etc. so in the end the lettuce is better, but the lettuce still counts.

But what if you are trying to hit your fat and carb macros for the day? Then the lettuce becomes worse while the cookie becomes "better".

JTick

However, the trefoil has sugar and fat, etc. so in the end the lettuce is better, but the lettuce still counts.

But what if you are trying to hit your fat and carb macros for the day? Then the lettuce becomes worse while the cookie becomes "better".

This. I have had a really hard time meeting my fat requirement for a long time, and it has messed my hormones up some. If I'm low on my fat, but have met my protein, I have no problem reaching for a candy bar or ice cream over some chicken breast.

STC1188

General response:

1. They put the patients on 10g of sodium a day. Wow. That's 4x the RDI (I am not sure how this affected water retention).

2. I am not sure if I read it, but how did they measure water and nitrogen balance? I believe for nitrogen they used creatinine chromagen, but I am not sure if that is accurate (?) What about water weight?

3. A calorie is a calorie, but how one responds to it is different. Note that the equation for caloric balance is calories in - calories out, which consists of NEAT, TEF, and other activities. I do not know about you, but when I eat more (and more carbs and protein specifically) my NEAT goes up and so does my general activity. What this means for me (and what this study might show) is that the response to certain macronutrients may vary among people, and this means not that Calories In - Calories Out will not dictate loss/gain, but some people have varying degrees of return on the Calories Out vs. Composition.

ETA

4. I also want to point out that taking the obese on a 7-9 day diet also is atypical and not very applicable to everyday people. Also, there definition of "obese" is not 100% clear.

AJ_G

Are we really supposed to be surprised that when you take one macronutrient to a ridiculous extreme and keep the other two at 5% calorie intake each that it will start to mess with your body? This is ESPECIALLY true when you deprive your body of protein and fat, the 2 most important macros. At that point you're starting to play around with actual insulin resistance issues and all the normal rules go out the window. If you're using calorie restriction with any sort of sensible macronutrient breakdown, then you will have the weight loss that you want. If you take anything to extreme, the normal rules become distorted.

STC1188

Are we really supposed to be surprised that when you take one macronutrient to a ridiculous extreme and keep the other two at 5% calorie intake each that it will start to mess with your body? This is ESPECIALLY true when you deprive your body of protein and fat, the 2 most important macros. At that point you're starting to play around with actual insulin resistance issues and all the normal rules go out the window. If you're using calorie restriction with any sort of sensible macronutrient breakdown, then you will have the weight loss that you want. If you take anything to extreme, the normal rules become distorted.

The reason that is interesting is because it shows that the macronutrient composition does indeed play a role. While I agree that extremes are not the best for defining optimal, they do show that there is indeed an effect. But I think this should be used as a guide and not a proof.

Hornsby

Are we really supposed to be surprised that when you take one macronutrient to a ridiculous extreme and keep the other two at 5% calorie intake each that it will start to mess with your body? This is ESPECIALLY true when you deprive your body of protein and fat, the 2 most important macros. At that point you're starting to play around with actual insulin resistance issues and all the normal rules go out the window. If you're using calorie restriction with any sort of sensible macronutrient breakdown, then you will have the weight loss that you want. If you take anything to extreme, the normal rules become distorted.

The reason that is interesting is because it shows that the macronutrient composition does indeed play a role. While I agree that extremes are not the best for defining optimal, they do show that there is indeed an effect. But I think this should be used as a guide and not a proof.

I don't think anyone would argue that the composition of a calorie doesn't matter. I have never heard that debated I don't guess. In the end, a calorie is still just a calorie.

raw_meal

saving for later

STC1188

I don't think anyone would argue that the composition of a calorie doesn't matter. I have never heard that debated I don't guess. In the end, a calorie is still just a calorie.

You must not see some of the nutters on these boards then.

SezxyStef

Yes and in 1955 the first hard drive was invented.....those guys were the bomb...but hello 21st century...

a study done in 1956 really?

As for the calorie is a calorie is a calorie yah that's true

And those who keep saying it will keep saying it because it's true.

Eat what you want stay in a calorie deficet you will lose weight...



I guess that thread that said calories weren't around until the 1970's has really been debunked now.

cpusmc

Link 2 validates link 1 and they are both refuted by link 3. It appears all 3 agree that reduction of calories does lead to weight loss in the obese, with females being the larger sex studied. 2 studies say that fat loss is greater when the percentage of calories from fat is higher than carbs and protein, while study 3 states there is no difference.

A. The studies seem to validate calorie reduction as an effective tool for weight loss in the obese.
B. The effects may be different women to men and obese to non-obese.
C. There is a split in significance of fat calories being higher than carb/protein between 2 studies.

So weight loss was achieved in a large group of obese women using calorie restriction. Some groups showed more success using fat calories as the highest macro, some groups achieved weight loss using "normal" macro allocation. I suppose the take from this is that if you are an obese female, weight loss should be achievable using a calorie restricted diet with fat macros as the highest or even with a balanced macro.

For everyone that falls outside a tested category the studies validate calorie restriction as a weight loss method and the success we each achieve will likely differ based on our own unique macro adjustment and activity levels.

Acg67

Hi everyone! I don't post much (usually lurking the boards like some crazy stalker) but I did come across this article in class today.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28131415/Kekwick-Pawan-1956-Lancet

If you don't want to read the main paper it broken down here in a pretty simple way:

http://www.colinmcnulty.com/blog/2011/11/22/a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/

and before anyone freaks out, I understand you're comfortable with your restriction and eating anything you want as long as you maintain a deficit. I get it. I was there, did that. And I experienced all the normal benefits of losing weight like lower blood pressure, more energy, etc. And here's the evidence pointing that calories DO count (do don't hang me for this)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18425652

I would just really appreciate your opinions on the papers above :flowerforyou: I may make this the subject of my thesis (in a more controlled study) but I want to be sure I address any initial concerns or objections the public may have before I dive into it.

Thank you!!! :blushing:

The Kekwick is an outlier, along with Rabst and a few others, in that it shows a "metabolic advantage" to low carb diets

Achrya

I don't think anyone would argue that the composition of a calorie doesn't matter. I have never heard that debated I don't guess. In the end, a calorie is still just a calorie.

You must not see some of the nutters on these boards then.

You probably misunderstand what those nutters are actually saying. No one has ever said all food is the same (cause that would be dumb) but that no food is bad because your diet doesn't exist in a vacuum and that balance is key.

devil_in_a_blue_dress

Does this also mean that the mile I ran isn't a mile isn't a mile????? :sad:

If it was a dirty mile, like in the mud, no sorry.

mccindy72

I don't think anyone would argue that the composition of a calorie doesn't matter. I have never heard that debated I don't guess. In the end, a calorie is still just a calorie.

You must not see some of the nutters on these boards then.

You probably misunderstand what those nutters are actually saying. No one has ever said all food is the same (cause that would be dumb) but that no food is bad because your diet doesn't exist in a vacuum and that balance is key.

Exactly. The good information always gets lost in some argument about "but studies show you can lose weight eating JUST McDonald's and that's not good for you!" While we all just sit back and wait for people to figure out that it's about balance. Eat McDonald's. Eat cauliflower. Eat cookies. Eat lean chicken breast. Keep the balance. At the end of the day, no one in reality is just eating one darn thing all the time (most of us) for the long haul. That balance is what makes the calorie deficit and then maintenance level calories sustainable for the long haul.