IIFYM vs "a calorie is a calorie"

SezxyStef

I don't see an actual "versus" here...

If I want to lose weight I create a calorie deficet...
If I want to lose mainly fat I create a calorie deficet while ensuring I meet my macros (protine...fat...carbs in that order)

Exactly! Who doesn't want to lose mainly fat? That's the point. Why is the concept of protein vs. fat vs. carb calories only reserved for "body builders"? It's a little misleading to those new to weight loss to suggest that the type of calories do not matter, don't you think? Yes, I get that when you have a great deal of weight to lose, you are going to lose mostly fat and the impact of the macros is less significant. But the principles of macros should still be understood by those trying to lose weight, because it does matter eventually. The advice to eat whatever you want as long as you are in a deficit is thrown around so casually. The notion that " I need to worry about what I eat because I am more concerned with my body composition, but you don't need to worry about it because you are not there yet" kind of annoys me. This is why some people end up so misinformed.

You would be surprised at how many people don't care....they just want the number on the scale to go down period.

Do macros matter eventually only if you want them to....

I can almost guarantee you ask a random sampling of people on this site...what do you want to lose weight or fat...they say fat...but when told how to do that....nope not gonna happen...they just want the weight gone...be at the scale weight/clothing size...whatever

That is why a lot of the time in the General forum when asked "why am I not losing weight" the answer is you need to be in a calorie deficet is the answer...

Or you see I am cutting out all "bad foods" that calorie is a calorie statement is used...baby steps for education...

If after they hear these things they are interested in more the start looking...

I know because that's what I did...I had no idea about Macros prior to being here...all I cared about was the number on the scale...I got educated.

likitisplit

The point that "only bodybuilders need to pay attention to macros" being bad advice is a good point.

Body builders who are eating 4000 calories + a day are probably fulfilling their macro and micro needs and then adding bunches of calories on top of that. Even when they are cutting, simply being aware of what they are eating will get them 80% there.

The people who really have to maximize the nutrition they get from each meal and make hard trade-offs between protein and other foods are the people who are close to 1200 calories a day.

ninerbuff

Just like a mile is a mile, a gallon is a gallon, and an hour is an hour.

I disagree -- a gallon of gas is not the same as a gallon of kerosene. Likewise, the "calorie is a calorie" school of thought disregards the thermic effect of food. The body has to expend more energy digesting some foods than others -- protein, 20-35%; carbohydrates, 5-15%; fat, 5-15%. It also disregards the fact that dietary fiber is not absorbed by the body and converted to energy.

So while it may be true that calorie is a calorie once it has been digested and absorbed, it's not true of calories that are consumed. Consuming 300 calories of protein and high-fiber carbohydrates will result in fewer of those calories being converted to energy in the body than 300 calories of chocolate, since some of the calories will be used in the digestion process itself, and some will move through the digestive tract without being absorbed at all.

If one had a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas, it's still a gallon. If someone walked a mile or ran a mile or biked a mile, it's still a mile.
A calorie is a calorie. Does macronutrient content of that calorie make a difference in the body? Sure, but let's not confuse a STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT vs how metabolism deals with intake. Like examples above, the standards of measurement don't change because the substances/approaches are different.

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

lporter229

Just like a mile is a mile, a gallon is a gallon, and an hour is an hour.

I disagree -- a gallon of gas is not the same as a gallon of kerosene. Likewise, the "calorie is a calorie" school of thought disregards the thermic effect of food. The body has to expend more energy digesting some foods than others -- protein, 20-35%; carbohydrates, 5-15%; fat, 5-15%. It also disregards the fact that dietary fiber is not absorbed by the body and converted to energy.

So while it may be true that calorie is a calorie once it has been digested and absorbed, it's not true of calories that are consumed. Consuming 300 calories of protein and high-fiber carbohydrates will result in fewer of those calories being converted to energy in the body than 300 calories of chocolate, since some of the calories will be used in the digestion process itself, and some will move through the digestive tract without being absorbed at all.

If one had a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas, it's still a gallon. If someone walked a mile or ran a mile or biked a mile, it's still a mile.
A calorie is a calorie. Does macronutrient content of that calorie make a difference in the body? Sure, but let's not confuse a STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT vs how metabolism deals with intake. Like examples above, the standards of measurement don't change because the substances/approaches are different.

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

Of course the standard of measurement is the same. I don't think anyone is debating that. I think we all know that when people say "a calorie is a calorie" , they ARE referring to how metabolism deals with intake and how it pertains to weightloss. And from everything I have read, the opinions vary, even among experts, because research is inconclusive.

tigersword

Where did you get those numbers? Every study I've read shows TEF as 23% for protein, 10% for carbs, and 3% for fat.

Also, in a typical diet, TEF is completely irrelevant. In fact, due to the much lower TEF of fat, low carb high fat diets usually produce a lower TEF than a higher carb, lower fat diet, even if the LCHF diet has slightly higher protein. In the real world, you're talking about a difference of 10-30 calories at most.

With respect to point #1, it's a range. Complex carbs have a higher TEF than sugar, for example. Regarding the second point, can you show how you got to 10-30 calories? I think that's incorrect. You're also only comparing high-carb vs. high-fat diets. The mix of carbohydrates is significant (lots of fruits and vegetables vs. lots of refined carbs). This study found a significant difference in the thermic effect of processed foods vs. whole foods: http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144

"The goal was to determine if a particular PF meal has a greater thermodynamic efficiency than a comparable WF meal, thereby conferring a greater net-energy intake.... Conclusion: Ingestion of the particular PF meal tested in this study decreases postprandial energy expenditure by nearly 50% compared with the isoenergetic WF meal. This reduction in daily energy expenditure has potential implications for diets comprised heavily of PFs and their associations with obesity."

Just out of curiosity, did you read this actual study, or just pick the quote from the abstract? I mean, I'll admit they did a clever job of writing the abstract, but the flaws in this study are pretty major, IMO. For one, the macros are significantly different for the "whole food meal" compared to the "processed food meal." Then the stated macronutrient and calorie contents given for the various meals don't add up, either. This means there's really no way to make any kind of comparison or conclusion, as the data is flawed from the outset.

jjplato

Sure, but let's not confuse a STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT vs how metabolism deals with intake.

Yes, I get the whole unit of measure thing. You said a calorie is a calorie just as a gallon is a gallon, and I'm saying that it's a false analogy. A calorie as a unit of energy that has been digested and converted for use by the body is a calorie just like any other -- it doesn't matter where it came from. But sitting on a plate ready to be eaten, 100 calories of protein and leafy greens is not the same thing - from a weight loss perspective - as 100 calories of cake frosting. The cake frosting will deliver more net energy to the body, because the body will use more energy to digest the protein and complex carbs, and some of it will pass through the digestive tract unabsorbed.

But if you were just pointing out that a gallon is a gallon from a unit-of-measure standpoint, then I guess I have to concede the point.

jjplato

For one, the macros are significantly different for the "whole food meal" compared to the "processed food meal."

That supports my point, because the calories were equivalent. My point is that a calorie is not a calorie, so seeing different results from different macro compositions - calories being equal - is what I would expect to see.

Then the stated macronutrient and calorie contents given for the various meals don't add up, either.

Don't add up to what? The "600 calorie" WF meal was 594 calories and the correpsonding PF meal was 586. The difference is 1.3%, which they must have judged to be an acceptable margin of error.

heybales

For one, the macros are significantly different for the "whole food meal" compared to the "processed food meal."

That supports my point, because the calories were equivalent. My point is that a calorie is not a calorie, so seeing different results from different macro compositions - calories being equal - is what I would expect to see.

But they are dealing with 2 variable then - whole vs processed foods, and different macro amounts, despite calories being the same.

The study is claiming something regarding processed vs whole foods - but how would they know the pure difference in results didn't come solely from the macro differences.

Macros should have been kept the same if desire was to test what they claimed.

If you want to test macro differences, provide shakes with as natural as they care to make it.
And keep lifestyle the same between the groups.

You can also use the common TEF amounts for macros and do back of the napkin math for realistic extremes, say 50 g carbs and whatever low-carb groups decide protein should be at with fat as rest of calories, compared to say someone following RDA req's. Keeping fiber in there, because indeed as pointed out that's not calories of carbs that counts.

jjplato

But they are dealing with 2 variable then - whole vs processed foods, and different macro amounts, despite calories being the same.

I think that's a valid criticism of their method. Their study seems to support a conclusion that there is a difference between meals with different macro compositions more so than a difference between "processed" and "whole" per se.

tigersword

Also, their "whole foods" meal consisted of prepackaged bread and prepackaged cheese. And all of their nutritional information was derived from the individual food packages.

The study really was about as anti-rigorous as it could possibly be.

heybales

Hey, it was backed by KFC!