A calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie

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.

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.

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/

LOVE that last link thank you so much!!

auddii

I've seen the first article before. I'd have to reread it, but I remember there being a huge descrepancy between some of the groups and the amount of salt they were eating, which could mask/enhance losses.

But, still, my favorite sentence is "...many of the patients had inadequate personalities."

Tagging to read later.

mccindy72

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

Don't zombies lose a lot of weight eating a SIGNIFICANT amount of fat and protein?

magerum

A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of stone. Got it.

hammersoaps

So it appears that a calorie deficit still results in weight loss unless you do something stupidly ridiculous like get 90% of your calories from carbs, in which you gain water weight. Some macro composition just makes it faster/more effective, but the end result is that weight was still lost with all different macro combinations WITH a calorie deficit. This pretty much validates the "a calorie is just a calorie" people. I'd love to see studies on long term, sustainable, fat loss instead of just "weight" loss.

mccindy72

So it appears that a calorie deficit still results in weight loss unless you do something stupidly ridiculous like get 90% of your calories from carbs, in which you gain water weight. Some macro composition just makes it faster/more effective, but the end result is that weight was still lost with all different macro combinations WITH a calorie deficit. This pretty much validates the "a calorie is just a calorie" people. I'd love to see studies on long term, sustainable, fat loss instead of just "weight" loss.

Even if you get 90% of your calories from carbs, if you are in a calorie deficit, you will still lose weight.

jkwolly

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

skinnybearerika

So it appears that a calorie deficit still results in weight loss unless you do something stupidly ridiculous like get 90% of your calories from carbs, in which you gain water weight. Some macro composition just makes it faster/more effective, but the end result is that weight was still lost with all different macro combinations WITH a calorie deficit. This pretty much validates the "a calorie is just a calorie" people. I'd love to see studies on long term, sustainable, fat loss instead of just "weight" loss.

Even if you get 90% of your calories from carbs, if you are in a calorie deficit, you will still lose weight.

Of course you will, but that was besides the point of the post

michael300891

I personally agree that at the finite level, different macronutrient intake has a role above that of calories on their own.

However, I'm not sure what the relevance and size of effect that difference would be - I do agree that more research is needed so get on with it and write your thesis!

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.

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?

I recall link 3 saying they used balanced macros versus modifying the fat macro to be more than carbs and protein in study 1, and I apologize i may have mis-read. I am a little confused by your comment "i would like to widen the category to those that are tested". Do you mean "widen the category to those that are outside the category tested"? i.e. outside the category of obese females? If yes, see below, if no, correct me and i will reply...

A. I would like to see some studies that cover a broader spectrum of body types and sexes. i.e. show me similar studies that include male/female who are "overweight" as well as those that are "healthy" but seeking to reduce their bf%. Using straight calorie reduction only.
B. Same but using calorie reduction combined with fat macros higher than carb/protein.
C. Same but using calorie reduction combined with protein macros higher than carb/fat.
D. Same but carbs the higher of the 3.

I am a believer and advocate that calorie reduction is a winner, it has worked for me going from 168 - 148 and bf of 19% to 10%. But I also know from my own journey that to take the bf% down it took me modifying my macros to go the final distance of 14% to 10%. And that was keeping the carb macro below both the protein and fat, with protein being the highest to maintain muscle mass. This model seemed to burn the fat that was the most stubborn for my body to lose, that in my mid-section. It worked for me but it was allot of trial and error and tracking to see what worked and it seems to somewhat fall in line with the study that messing with your macros does create differing levels of fat loss.

This post and a quarter wont buy a cup of coffee so take it for what its worth.... Good luck...

mmipanda

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

A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of stone. Got it.

This is such a non-argument. You guys are pretty much saying 'there is no difference' but then when pressed, will say 'the measurement is the same regardless of the composition'.


And that is just completely mind-numbingly obvious. Like saying 'the reason there are more people in one restaurant than the other is because more people walked into that one'. Sure, its a correct answer, but exceedingly opaque.

kgeyser

A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of stone. Got it.

A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold.

skinnybearerika

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

A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of stone. Got it.

This is such a non-argument. You guys are pretty much saying 'there is no difference' but then when pressed, will say 'the measurement is the same regardless of the composition'.


And that is just completely mind-numbingly obvious. Like saying 'the reason there are more people in one restaurant than the other is because more people walked into that one'. Sure, its a correct answer, but exceedingly opaque.

beat me to it mmipanda, thanks

Hornsby

It may be opaque, but it's the truth. The "calorie is a calorie" people aren't the ones trying to distort the fact that a calorie is just a calorie as a mile is a mile regardless of whether it is composed of a straight highway, or mountainous terrain, or whatever. Different things make them up, but in the end, a mile is still a mile.

It's the principal

mccindy72

It may be opaque, but it's the truth. The "calorie is a calorie" people aren't the ones trying to distort the fact that a calorie is just a calorie as a mile is a mile regardless of whether it is composed of a straight highway, or mountainous terrain, or whatever. Different things make them up, but in the end, a mile is still a mile.

It's the principal

exactly.

mmipanda

It may be opaque, but it's the truth. The "calorie is a calorie" people aren't the ones trying to distort the fact that a calorie is just a calorie as a mile is a mile regardless of whether it is composed of a straight highway, or mountainous terrain, or whatever. Different things make them up, but in the end, a mile is still a mile.

It's the principal

Sure, same measurement. But she said "The mile I ran" which changes things drastically. Because the distance is the same but the impact on the person involved changes based on variables. How fast was she running? Was it in soft sand or on a treadmill? Up a mountain?

Its not the same even though the unit of distance measured is the same. Because that's just oversimplifying to the ultimate degree and ruling out every possible variable. Which to me IS distorting facts. Its like saying I have a metre of chain and a metre of ribbon, and they can be used interchangably because a metre is a metre.

ndj1979

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...

sodium makes you retain water….get outa here…!

JSClausen

I would be very careful using a research study that is nearly 70 years old. Here is a link to another research study: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

It also suggests that all calories are not created equal, but it pertains more towards maintaining weight loss and other health concerns (blood glucose) as opposed to losing weight.

I would suggest that you fine-tune what your focus for your paper would be, because this is a gray area it seems. So you could discuss if all calories equal for weight loss, or if a calorie is a calorie in regards to overall health, etc.

fast_eddie_72

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

A calorie is a unit of energy, among other things. Like so many words in the English language, it has more than one entry when you look it up in the dictionary.

SunofaBeach14

Yay! You reinvented the wheel. Congratulations, you're a genius! :drinker: