A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE

lindsey1979

A+ for derailment
F- for comprehension of thread topic.

the title of the post is a "calorie is not a calorie" and then she goes on to say quality is more important then quantity.

so by this argument I can eat 1000 quality calories over maintenance and I will not gain a pound right? Because quality matters over quantity..right, right, right?

You have a really hard time with reading comprehension. The thread is titled as such, she provides a study that supports that and then draws that conclusion that quality is more important.

I agree with the first two and disagree with the last. I don't believe that her conclusion is correct or an accurate representation of the article's conclusion.

However, both she and the article are correct in the original premise -- that quality of calories is also important to weight loss. You keep trying to twist things to support your arguments. But they're incorrect.

SezxyStef

Again, I'll say: I find it quite interesting that you are pointing out how we are all wrong although we have pictures of our own current progress and status; and are giving out information on our own eating habits and what worked for us; and I've seen and read no proof of your own argument. It's rather futile to argue against us without offering any return debate.

You are all wrong on this specific premise.

I'm not saying that what you're ultimately doing doesn't produce results (for some) or that the entire strategy is fatally flawed. On the contrary, looking at certain macros (as I've been advocating specifically in protein) and maintaining a certain deficit can be a good strategy for some, perhaps even many (but certainly not all). I'm merely pointing out to the extent your strategy relies on the premise that all calories are the same and deficit is the ONLY thing that matters in weight loss, it's a flawed premise. Broken clocks are right twice a day too.

and you know that a calorie deficet isn't what causes weight loss in all how???? Every "diet" out there regardless of if they count calories or not relies on the fact that their chosen scheme will put you in a deficet, why because they cut out higher calorie options that they say are "bad"

lindsey1979

Yes, they're saying that quantity matters too -- just as I've been saying. But the vast majority of the article also talks about how quality is important -- from that atkins dieters, the high protein and low glycemic carbs, etc. It backs the premise again and again that the quality of what you're eating is important too.

for health not weight loss.

now wth is that chocolate covered cantelope..I am gonna go lift heavy things and need a snack for after...

Wrong. Health impacts weight loss. How much weight you lose is DIRECTLY affected by what sort of tissue you're catabolizing -- whether it's muscle or fat. The more muscle you catabolize, the greater your weight loss will be. The more fat you catabolize, the less weight you'll lose.

Once again, you'll lose weight in both scenarios. But, if you want to maximize your efforts, you want to focus on fat loss, not weight loss generally as you want to retain as much muscle as possible.

Do you want to work hard? Or work both hard and smart? If it's the latter, then you want to focus on quality as well as quantity to maximize your efforts. Period.

lindsey1979

As a note all the diets referenced in this article Atkins, zone, Ornish you do not counted calories....so to say that the quality of the calories is what makes you lose weight is ambiguous at best...

Because they weren't measuring all the factors involved...

In that article, perhaps. But you know very well, Steph, that there are other studies out there showing that -- just like the ones I quoted above about protein.

sassyjae21

Maybe I can help.

I think that what nearly everyone here is trying to get across, is that weight loss happens in an calorie deficit.

The reason that people started going in is because she said it is the phrase "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY". All that matters in weight loss when it comes to calories, is quantity. That's it.

Then you came in talking about how calories are acutally used in the body. This is a different topic. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, because honestly, I don't know enough about that to argue that point. But I, along with the rest of us here, know that for weight loss, only quantity matters. And from her oringinal statement, OP was talking about weight loss. If she wasn't, then she didn't specify. Or if she did, idk cause that was like 47 pages ago

That's all.

lindsey1979

Yes, they're saying that quantity matters too -- just as I've been saying. But the vast majority of the article also talks about how quality is important -- from that atkins dieters, the high protein and low glycemic carbs, etc. It backs the premise again and again that the quality of what you're eating is important too.

F- for reiterating your own points over and over again and avoiding the questions you don't want to answer.

What is the question then? I thought I answered it, but you think I haven't.

lindsey1979

You are all wrong on this specific premise.

I'm not saying that what you're ultimately doing doesn't produce results (for some) or that the entire strategy is fatally flawed. On the contrary, looking at certain macros (as I've been advocating specifically in protein) and maintaining a certain deficit can be a good strategy for some, perhaps even many (but certainly not all). I'm merely pointing out to the extent your strategy relies on the premise that all calories are the same and deficit is the ONLY thing that matters in weight loss, it's a flawed premise. Broken clocks are right twice a day too.

so I can eat in a calorie deficit and gain weight???? Really? Explain that one...

Totally missing the point AGAIN.

No, you'll lose in both scenarios. But if you eat certain things, you'll maximize the same deficit and will result in greater fat loss (though less weight loss as muscle loss results in greater weight loss).

lemonsnowdrop

If a calorie is not a calorie, then what is it? :P

DamePiglet

Here's my thing...
QUALITY of food... meaning "nutrient density"... yes. Very important for good health.

QUALITY of a calorie? That means nothing to me.

Joanne_Moniz

Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.

Our body needs quality food.

sassyjae21

I have to applaud you though, whether or not you're right or wrong. You actually sound pretty level headed while stating your claims. Most people would have resulted to insults and rage quit by now lol.


ETA this was directed at lindsay1975. Not the individual above me LOL

lindsey1979

Again, I'll say: I find it quite interesting that you are pointing out how we are all wrong although we have pictures of our own current progress and status; and are giving out information on our own eating habits and what worked for us; and I've seen and read no proof of your own argument. It's rather futile to argue against us without offering any return debate.

You are all wrong on this specific premise.

I'm not saying that what you're ultimately doing doesn't produce results (for some) or that the entire strategy is fatally flawed. On the contrary, looking at certain macros (as I've been advocating specifically in protein) and maintaining a certain deficit can be a good strategy for some, perhaps even many (but certainly not all). I'm merely pointing out to the extent your strategy relies on the premise that all calories are the same and deficit is the ONLY thing that matters in weight loss, it's a flawed premise. Broken clocks are right twice a day too.

and you know that a calorie deficet isn't what causes weight loss in all how???? Every "diet" out there regardless of if they count calories or not relies on the fact that their chosen scheme will put you in a deficet, why because they cut out higher calorie options that they say are "bad"

Once again, I'm not saying that a calorie deficit isn't important. It is. But so the quality of the calories you consume to achieve that deficit. Two separate premises, both of which are important and impact fat and weight loss.

SunofaBeach14

Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.

Our body needs quality food.

In for more confusion about basics

ndj1979

Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.

Our body needs quality food.

after ten pages that is all you got, really?

so cow meat vs cow meat is not cow meat????

SezxyStef

Yes, they're saying that quantity matters too -- just as I've been saying. But the vast majority of the article also talks about how quality is important -- from that atkins dieters, the high protein and low glycemic carbs, etc. It backs the premise again and again that the quality of what you're eating is important too.

for health not weight loss.

now wth is that chocolate covered cantelope..I am gonna go lift heavy things and need a snack for after...

Wrong. Health impacts weight loss. How much weight you lose is DIRECTLY affected by what sort of tissue you're catabolizing -- whether it's muscle or fat. The more muscle you catabolize, the greater your weight loss will be. The more fat you catabolize, the less weight you'll lose.

Once again, you'll lose weight in both scenarios. But, if you want to maximize your efforts, you want to focus on fat loss, not weight loss generally as you want to retain as much muscle as possible.

Do you want to work hard? Or work both hard and smart? If it's the latter, then you want to focus on quality as well as quantity to maximize your efforts. Period.

Again this is about weight loss not the quality of the weight loss.

You can go around in this circle as many times as you want and yet prove nothing becaue you have nothing to back up what you are saying.

Yes we (most here who eat 80/20) agree it is best to watch macros to ensure we don't lose muscle...etc.

But we also agree if you want to lose weight(jsut that number on the scale nothing more nothing less) it is about quantity of calories and you have nothing concrete to suggest otherwise except your daunting need to be right.

Nothing to back up what you are saying...even the harvard article doesn't say it because it references studies of non calorie counting diets so that is mute in your argument.

And to be frank I don't care what you believe, there are too many of us that know better..and prove it day after day after day and "recruit" others to our side and feed them cookies :devil: and icecream sandwiches made with poptarts...and AMG they lose weight...because they are in a calorie deficet.

Oh And just because you think it doesn't make it so...

Science and cold hard facts are not on your side.

*flips hair, does a duck face and watches for the argument to flow forth*

Right fighters...have to be right...even when in the end they are wrong and look totally well...silly.

ndj1979

Again, I'll say: I find it quite interesting that you are pointing out how we are all wrong although we have pictures of our own current progress and status; and are giving out information on our own eating habits and what worked for us; and I've seen and read no proof of your own argument. It's rather futile to argue against us without offering any return debate.

You are all wrong on this specific premise.

I'm not saying that what you're ultimately doing doesn't produce results (for some) or that the entire strategy is fatally flawed. On the contrary, looking at certain macros (as I've been advocating specifically in protein) and maintaining a certain deficit can be a good strategy for some, perhaps even many (but certainly not all). I'm merely pointing out to the extent your strategy relies on the premise that all calories are the same and deficit is the ONLY thing that matters in weight loss, it's a flawed premise. Broken clocks are right twice a day too.

and you know that a calorie deficet isn't what causes weight loss in all how???? Every "diet" out there regardless of if they count calories or not relies on the fact that their chosen scheme will put you in a deficet, why because they cut out higher calorie options that they say are "bad"

Once again, I'm not saying that a calorie deficit isn't important. It is. But so the quality of the calories you consume to achieve that deficit. Two separate premises, both of which are important and impact fat and weight loss.

and the original post was about nothing that you have been going on an on about ..

it was about Quality trumping Quantity ...

sassyjae21

Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.

Our body needs quality food.

after ten pages that is all you got, really?

so cow meat vs cow meat is not cow meat????

:laugh:

SezxyStef

If a calorie is not a calorie, then what is it? :P

it's a cookie

eric_sg61

Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.

Our body needs quality food.

you mean this:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html

lindsey1979

Maybe I can help.

I think that what nearly everyone here is trying to get across, is that weight loss happens in an calorie deficit.

The reason that people started going in is because she said it is the phrase "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY". All that matters in weight loss when it comes to calories, is quantity. That's it.

Then you came in talking about how calories are acutally used in the body. This is a different topic. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, because honestly, I don't know enough about that to argue that point. But I, along with the rest of us here, know that for weight loss, only quantity matters. And from her oringinal statement, OP was talking about weight loss. If she wasn't, then she didn't specify. Or if she did, idk cause that was like 47 pages ago

That's all.

I appreciate that, but it's not true. A deficit is necessary for weight loss -- yes -- I'm in total agreement with you there. But how you create that deficit (i.e which calories you consume) will impact how much weight you actually lose.

For example (again):

--- 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. So, if you are able to catabolize only fat and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 1 lb.
--- 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals (I've seen various numbers). If you only catabolize muscle and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 2.3-5.8 lbs.

The good news is that no one loses 100%, unless something is very medically wrong. So, most lose some percentage of fat and some percentage of muscle. Ideally, you want to maximize fat loss and minimize muscle loss. Eating a certain amount of protein and lifting heavy will help you do this is in a caloric deficit.

So, in conclusion, what you eat to create that deficit most certainly impacts your amount and type weight loss (although you will lose weight in a deficit regardless -- just how much of fat vs. muscle and how much total weight will be vary based on what you eat).