A calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie

raw_meal

The original study stated this in the summary:
"4. At a level of intake of 2000 calories per day, weight was maintained or increased in for out of five obese patients. In these same subjects SIGNIFICANT weight-loss occurred when the calorie intake was RAISED to 2600 per day, provided this intake was given mainly in the form of FAT AND PROTEIN."

:noway: Wow!

Changes my POV.

skinnybearerika

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.

Well link 3 actually doesn't refute the first link, it just demonstrates a significant weight loss when calories are restricted. But yes that is the take away and I would like to widen the category to those that are tested. Seeing how you read the studies, would you recommend any groups I should include? what would make this more relevant to you?

skinnybearerika

The original study stated this in the summary:
"4. At a level of intake of 2000 calories per day, weight was maintained or increased in for out of five obese patients. In these same subjects SIGNIFICANT weight-loss occurred when the calorie intake was RAISED to 2600 per day, provided this intake was given mainly in the form of FAT AND PROTEIN."

:noway: Wow!

Changes my POV.

Me too. It's insane :noway:

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:

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

How is it an outlier? I understand that a lot of that weight loss may have been because of water but there have certainly been other studies demonstrating a low carb diet can be beneficial for brain function.

Kanuenue

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?

Because the human body is different today than it was in the 1950's. Just like the computer.

???

The article makes some excellent points. And it also shows the need for more research. Our equipment is better, biochemistry is better understood but nutrition is a young science. We still have a lot to learn but the study can still be accurate despite the time it was performed.

happysherri

I don't believe all calories are equal. However, I NEED MY CHOCOLATE, and sometimes french fries, and sometimes Cheeseburgers, and sometimes Pizza, and sometimes candy, and sometimes Movie Popcorn, and ........

:-)

skinnybearerika

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.

Agreed. We must remember however that the typical SAD (standard American Diet) has led to a heart disease epidemic while the mediterranean diet may lower the risk for heart disease. It doesn't have to be so extreme for a person, thats not sustainable. But it is one way of demonstrating that macro's do play a role and thats what I want to explore further. If somebody is indeed at risk for heart disease, then eating a diet high in X macro for X amount of time may quickly stabilize their body until they can return to a more typical and sustainable diet. THATS why I am pursuing this.

skinnybearerika

I don't believe all calories are equal. However, I NEED MY CHOCOLATE, and sometimes french fries, and sometimes Cheeseburgers, and sometimes Pizza, and sometimes candy, and sometimes Movie Popcorn, and ........

:-)

Same here but all those things can use a little tweak now and then

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

How is it an outlier? I understand that a lot of that weight loss may have been because of water but there have certainly been other studies demonstrating a low carb diet can be beneficial for brain function.

When compared to the rest of the literature on the subject, esp studies controlling both calories and protein, there is not significantly different fat loss between low carb/keto diets and other higher carb diets

Holly_Roman_Empire

IN. Because these threads never disappoint.

Snow3y

At least you're sweet about the whole thing and not *****y like most people that post about this OP, but a calorie is a calorie :P

Holly_Roman_Empire

The original study stated this in the summary:
"4. At a level of intake of 2000 calories per day, weight was maintained or increased in for out of five obese patients. In these same subjects SIGNIFICANT weight-loss occurred when the calorie intake was RAISED to 2600 per day, provided this intake was given mainly in the form of FAT AND PROTEIN."

:noway: Wow!

Changes my POV.

Me too. It's insane :noway:

It was probably water weight loss due to less carbohydrates. Prove to me that that was all fat loss, and over a time frame longer than a week, and I'll listen.

skinnybearerika

When compared to the rest of the literature on the subject, esp studies controlling both calories and protein, there is not significantly different fat loss between low carb/keto diets and other higher carb diets

If you could point me those papers I would really appreciate it! Again, trying to address anything that would require further research. So far I'm finding that there is a sig fat loss. Every other study I have read has speculated via computer predictions, or has evaluated its subject long term. Those that have done long term still see the most rapid decline in adiposity in the high fat diet subjects, but then the carb one eventually caught up. Which doesn't mean that the high fat is useless, it could still benefit people who need to get in shape ASAP.

raw_meal

misunderstood Q

skinnybearerika

The original study stated this in the summary:
"4. At a level of intake of 2000 calories per day, weight was maintained or increased in for out of five obese patients. In these same subjects SIGNIFICANT weight-loss occurred when the calorie intake was RAISED to 2600 per day, provided this intake was given mainly in the form of FAT AND PROTEIN."

:noway: Wow!

Changes my POV.

Me too. It's insane :noway:

It was probably water weight loss due to less carbohydrates. Prove to me that that was all fat loss, and over a time frame longer than a week, and I'll listen.

A lot of it is water weight. which is still important. Individuals with a high amount of adipose tissue retain an excessive amount of water (more than the average person, understandably) and this can lead to very uncomfortable symptoms. They also had a high amount of salt (although the number reflects the typical amount of salt consumed daily via SAD). Anyways, it probably was a good amount of water loss, but that doesn't mean its not important. Just something I will try to address in my experiment.

Hornsby

The original study stated this in the summary:
"4. At a level of intake of 2000 calories per day, weight was maintained or increased in for out of five obese patients. In these same subjects SIGNIFICANT weight-loss occurred when the calorie intake was RAISED to 2600 per day, provided this intake was given mainly in the form of FAT AND PROTEIN."

:noway: Wow!

Changes my POV.

Me too. It's insane :noway:

It was probably water weight loss due to less carbohydrates. Prove to me that that was all fat loss, and over a time frame longer than a week, and I'll listen.

A lot of it is water weight. which is still important. Individuals with a high amount of adipose tissue retain an excessive amount of water (more than the average person, understandably) and this can lead to very uncomfortable symptoms. They also had a high amount of salt (although the number reflects the typical amount of salt consumed daily via SAD). Anyways, it probably was a good amount of water loss, but that doesn't mean its not important. Just something I will try to address in my experiment.

Yea, but if it was water weight, which I would assume it is, then it's nothing groundbreaking. I'm pretty sure most here know that carbs and sodium make you retain more water...

cwolfman13

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.

Agreed. We must remember however that the typical SAD (standard American Diet) has led to a heart disease epidemic while the mediterranean diet may lower the risk for heart disease. It doesn't have to be so extreme for a person, thats not sustainable. But it is one way of demonstrating that macro's do play a role and thats what I want to explore further. If somebody is indeed at risk for heart disease, then eating a diet high in X macro for X amount of time may quickly stabilize their body until they can return to a more typical and sustainable diet. THATS why I am pursuing this.

I don't think anyone would really argue that macro ratios and nutrient content don't play a role in overall health and well being...not to mention body composition. One of the reasons I started all of this was not to lose weight, but to clean up some health issues and to attempt to use nutrition and exercise to do so. Watching my macros has helped me to eat in a much more balanced way and the nutrition I'm getting has gone a very long way in fixing a lot of nasty blood work and what not. I don't low carb per sei, but my carbohydrate intake is much more moderate than it used to be and my protein intake is greater and I'm more aware of the types of fats that I am consuming these days and I get a lot more monounsaturated fats than I used to.

That said, I attribute my weight loss to restricting my calorie intake. Although I do find the whole 2600 calories and high fat diet with weight loss thing kind of interesting

Acg67

When compared to the rest of the literature on the subject, esp studies controlling both calories and protein, there is not significantly different fat loss between low carb/keto diets and other higher carb diets

If you could point me those papers I would really appreciate it! Again, trying to address anything that would require further research. So far I'm finding that there is a sig fat loss. Every other study I have read has speculated via computer predictions, or has evaluated its subject long term. Those that have done long term still see the most rapid decline in adiposity in the high fat diet subjects, but then the carb one eventually caught up. Which doesn't mean that the high fat is useless, it could still benefit people who need to get in shape ASAP.

Presence or absence of carbohydrates and the proportion of fat in a high-protein diet affect appetite suppression but not energy expenditure in normal-weight human subjects fed in energy balance

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/login;jsessionid=B69AFF098E076B189F25B781980BD018.journals

Here is a write up of that study

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285

Here's a bunch of papers listed

http://evilcyber.com/losing-weight/low-carb-keto-diet/

psych101

wow, I was totally expecting this to be a zombie thread - but no, its a brand new one!

Holly_Roman_Empire

The original study stated this in the summary:
"4. At a level of intake of 2000 calories per day, weight was maintained or increased in for out of five obese patients. In these same subjects SIGNIFICANT weight-loss occurred when the calorie intake was RAISED to 2600 per day, provided this intake was given mainly in the form of FAT AND PROTEIN."

:noway: Wow!

Changes my POV.

Me too. It's insane :noway:

It was probably water weight loss due to less carbohydrates. Prove to me that that was all fat loss, and over a time frame longer than a week, and I'll listen.

A lot of it is water weight. which is still important. Individuals with a high amount of adipose tissue retain an excessive amount of water (more than the average person, understandably) and this can lead to very uncomfortable symptoms. They also had a high amount of salt (although the number reflects the typical amount of salt consumed daily via SAD). Anyways, it probably was a good amount of water loss, but that doesn't mean its not important. Just something I will try to address in my experiment.

Which is fine, as long as it's understood that way. I just don't want someone to think that they can eat maintenance calories (or more) and still lose weight as long as it's protein and fat consumption.