A calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie

cwsreddy

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

A mile is just a unit of measure, but conditions present during the the course of traveling the mile are relevant. Would you perform identically for running a mile ran on a treadmill vs on the street vs up the side of a hill vs through snow vs on the beach? Does a mile ran at 10,000 feet of elevation require the same effort as one ran at sea level? A calorie is also just a unit of measure, just like a mile, and stripping away all of the other factors associated with a measurement is a simplistic way to look at a very complex process.

DROP THE MIC!

Hornsby

Don't need to read to know where this went.

Y'all can delude yourselves all you want, but the quality of nutrition between two calories is not always identical.

Sowwy.

Luckily, that's exactly where it went, and basically where it has always been

cwsreddy

Don't need to read to know where this went.

Y'all can delude yourselves all you want, but the quality of nutrition between two calories is not always identical.

Sowwy.

Luckily, that's exactly where it went, and basically where it has always been

nice!

LiftAllThePizzas

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

Did you account for spatial contraction? Do you even relativity?

Expect_The_Worst

tennisdude2004

The thing that has surprised me with this thread is the speed it's gone and the lack of familiar faces.

Maybe OP's starting with case studies don't get the same attention as OP's starting blog references!!!! (only page 4 - still too soon).

stealthq

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.

You can use them interchangeably if you want to measure a meter. When people say a meter is a meter, or a calorie is a calorie, it's limited to the definition of the term - a unit of distance or a unit of energy (or even a non-specific food that produces a calorie of energy). If you want to discuss other information, then you discuss things like the material you have a meter of, or the specific course you ran (for the ran a mile analogy), or the source of the calorie.

A calorie is a calorie is accurate. A calorie of fat is not the same as a calorie of protein is also accurate.

Not sure why so many seem to have a difficult time with this concept.

tigersword

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.

The Mediterranean diet is a high carb, moderate protein, lower to moderate fat diet. It's actually very similar from a macro ratio perspective to the supposed "SAD." The difference is with portion size, and total caloric intake.

mccindy72

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.

The Mediterranean diet is a high carb, moderate protein, lower to moderate fat diet. It's actually very similar from a macro ratio perspective to the supposed "SAD." The difference is with portion size, and total caloric intake.

Because olive oil.

Akimajuktuq

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.

You haven't been around here long then. Anyone who even remotely suggests that what one eats matters (macro ratio vs individual physiology and metabolic issues) gets flamed from a thousand directions by the it's "only calories in/calories out" crowd. As if the human body is such a simple system and has no strategies for avoiding starvation or obesity... (I know my ancestors weren't calculating every calorie that went in their mouths AND they never got obese AND they weren't all athletes.)

cwolfman13

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

A mile is just a unit of measure, but conditions present during the the course of traveling the mile are relevant. Would you perform identically for running a mile ran on a treadmill vs on the street vs up the side of a hill vs through snow vs on the beach? Does a mile ran at 10,000 feet of elevation require the same effort as one ran at sea level? A calorie is also just a unit of measure, just like a mile, and stripping away all of the other factors associated with a measurement is a simplistic way to look at a very complex process.

I tend to agree that A calorie is a calorie is ultimately an oversimplification; however, it is still overwhelmingly the largest part of the equation and what the vast majority of people should be putting their energy into controlling (followed very closely by something resembling a balanced and nutritious diet).

The problem with these kinds of threads and discussions is that they always go into these extremes...90% of calories coming from carbs...30% of calories coming from added sugar or whatever...basically extremes that don't really exist in the real world and ones that, if they did, would be very valid concerns.

The reality is that someone eating a decently balanced diet with adequate nutrition with consumption below what would be required to maintain is going to lose weight and in that sense, for the most part, a calorie is a calorie and that's what the average Joe/Jane trying to lose a little weight and getting some fitness should put the vast majority of the efforts into.

ndj1979

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.

You haven't been around here long then. Anyone who even remotely suggests that what one eats matters (macro ratio vs individual physiology and metabolic issues) gets flamed from a thousand directions by the it's "only calories in/calories out" crowd. As if the human body is such a simple system and has no strategies for avoiding starvation or obesity... (I know my ancestors weren't calculating every calorie that went in their mouths AND they never got obese AND they weren't all athletes.)

so you know what every single one of your ancestors ate and you know that none of them were obese...impressive...

cwsreddy

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.

You haven't been around here long then. Anyone who even remotely suggests that what one eats matters (macro ratio vs individual physiology and metabolic issues) gets flamed from a thousand directions by the it's "only calories in/calories out" crowd. As if the human body is such a simple system and has no strategies for avoiding starvation or obesity... (I know my ancestors weren't calculating every calorie that went in their mouths AND they never got obese AND they weren't all athletes.)

so you know what every single one of your ancestors ate and you know that none of them were obese...impressive...

another brilliant contribution! thanks dude! welcome to the thread! :flowerforyou:

QuietBloom

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.

Hmm. IN. For inadequate personalities.

hkristine1

All I know is that I seem to lose weight no matter *what* I eat, so long as I eat a caloric deficit. I also know, however, that I FEEL a ton better when I'm eating healthy foods and not just getting my caloric intake from candy bars. I have more energy, get sick less frequently, am more patient, and my stomach doesn't gurgle and feel generally angry. So, yes, if my goal is to lose weight, I'll eat whatever I darn well please and ONLY pay attention to calories (a calorie is a calorie is a calorie). If, on the other hand, I want to FEEL good, I better eat foods that help my body function better (physically / psychologically / emotionally etc).

rprussell2004

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.

The issue, however, is the chemical/material which RELEASES the calorie, and how it is handled by the body.

raw_meal

Acg67 posted the following in this topic, did anyone read it?

Increasing Protein, or Decreasing Carbohydrate…Which Gives You a Metabolic Advantage?

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

It's conclusions were:
"The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that there is no metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate intake that is independent of a high protein intake. There is a metabolic advantage to a high protein diet, which will increase the calories you burn by 80-100 calories per day. There is also a dramatic satiety advantage to a high protein intake. A low carbohydrate intake (low enough to cause ketosis) can increase this satiety advantage, but individual responses will vary. The best dietary approach for you will depend upon a variety of factors."

Thoughts?

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/

mccindy72

All I know is that I seem to lose weight no matter *what* I eat, so long as I eat a caloric deficit. I also know, however, that I FEEL a ton better when I'm eating healthy foods and not just getting my caloric intake from candy bars. I have more energy, get sick less frequently, am more patient, and my stomach doesn't gurgle and feel generally angry. So, yes, if my goal is to lose weight, I'll eat whatever I darn well please and ONLY pay attention to calories (a calorie is a calorie is a calorie). If, on the other hand, I want to FEEL good, I better eat foods that help my body function better (physically / psychologically / emotionally etc).

I feel really good when I eat a candy bar. I only eat a small amount of one once in a while and I get a great deal of enjoyment from it.

rprussell2004

A low carbohydrate intake (low enough to cause ketosis) can increase this satiety advantage, but individual responses will vary. The best dietary approach for you will depend upon a variety of factors."

Thoughts?

NO. NO NO NO NO NO!

WE MUST HAZ A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL SOLUTION.

CLAIMING "IT'S DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE" WILL NEVER FLY.

tennisdude2004

Acg67 posted the following in this topic, did anyone read it?

Increasing Protein, or Decreasing Carbohydrate…Which Gives You a Metabolic Advantage?

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

It's conclusions were:
"The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that there is no metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate intake that is independent of a high protein intake. There is a metabolic advantage to a high protein diet, which will increase the calories you burn by 80-100 calories per day. There is also a dramatic satiety advantage to a high protein intake. A low carbohydrate intake (low enough to cause ketosis) can increase this satiety advantage, but individual responses will vary. The best dietary approach for you will depend upon a variety of factors."

Thoughts?

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/

Thoughts are that based on MFP rules that should be another thread.