A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE
Replies
-
The amount of protein needed to have only a small amount of muscles catabolized is pretty low. Something like 60 grams I think. In most diets that is easily met. And even if not, it just simply doesn't happen that only muscle gets catabolized and no fat. So you'll end up at the approximate pound per 3500 calories one way or another.Saying this again since she missed it the first time and didn't reply:
No one eats JUST one food, overall, really. That's OUR point . we all eat a combination of many foods, so there's no ONE impact on weight loss, which is why the main focus is the calorie deficit. Unless you're on Survivor, living on nothing but rice, you're going to eat a combination of many different things each day. Rather than calculate how many kcals each food source might impact you, you calculate the calories of each food source and have an overall calorie deficit. that's how it works. that deficit results in weight loss. When you maintain a deficit that results in a loss of 1-2 lbs per week, and follow a fitness plan, you keep your lean muscle while losing fat.
I just wouldn't make such assumptions about people as there is a wide variety of what people eat.
Many people after learning about the fact that a certain amount of protein helps minimize loss/maintain LBM in a caloric deficit specifically aim to eat at least that much. Those trying to build muscle eat even more.
Knowing these sorts of things helps people create a plan that works for them as no plan fits all.0 -
Then we might as well say a mile is not a mile based on where you drive it...
It's still a mile, but if you're talking about how many calories you'll burn will traversing it, then several other factors become important -- the weight of the person, the rate of speed, the incline, etc. Those factors will impact how many calories are burned by the individual.
That's why a mile is a mile is limited in its helpfulness as regards weight loss or exercise burn. The same with a calorie is a calorie.0 -
Bingo!0
-
IS THERE STILL A NO-SUGAR GROUP FOR THESE DISCUSSIONS??!?0
-
I've seen 3500 thrown around for a pound of fat, and people take that as the gold standard (and what you've quoted as well), but I believe there have been some studies that have shown that isn't exactly true, and there has been a very wide range of estimations of how many calories it takes to build or lose a pound of muscle. There have also been studies that have shown that the ability to maintain muscle mass is far more dependent on muscle loading and activity levels. While the food you eat has some impact, it is greatly overshadowed by activity.
So yes, in theory you are partially right (and again, I'd need to check some studies for actual numbers), but in reality and actual people trying to lose weight; it may not matter as much as you say.
But, I'm assuming from how you've been arguing you're going to take that as a win.
Yep, taking it as a win. I'm not arguing how much it will impact as that's going to vary a lot depending on a multitude of factors. Merely, that is does have an impact. Some have said that there is no impact, and that's what I've been trying to debunk with the explanations and variety of examples.0 -
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
Hold the phones, kids, we have a smart one here! We should all just stop posting and take her word as gospel, because we just don't have the mental capability to understand.
0 -
My friends ran a 5k that was not a 5k. They were very disappointed in whoever planned the route...Then we might as well say a mile is not a mile based on where you drive it...
So that's how it works...
One just says it something (or in this case it's not) and it just is. 0 -
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
My son falls in to that same category.
My reason for telling you this...
Sometimes he can't see the forest for the trees (or is that the trees for the forest?). He is so brilliant that at times...he can't see the things that are simple. In his mind...he looks for the complicated...at times he has trouble communicating his thoughts in a way that others can understand.
I have always told him...he is not a special snowflake...in the real world things don't always work as he thinks they should...and that he has trouble some times coming in out of the rain.
The other thing that I taught him...never make someone else feel less than simply because he is in that top 1%.0 -
So now you're linking an article that has absolutely nothing to do with weight loss? Also, that article was based on a study where the macros weren't identical, yet the hormonal responses were identical. That seems to go further toward disproviong your argument, not proving it. Lyle is very much a proponent of "a calorie is a calorie." In fact, in the comments section he responds to a poster by stating flat out that, "it's the calories, not the quality."Wrong Lyle article -- my mistake. Here's his quote:
"For a couple of decades, there has been an ongoing argument regarding the issue of ‘is a calorie a calorie’ in terms of changes on body composition and other parameters. I discuss this topic in Is a Calorie a Calorie?
Fundamentally, my belief is that, given identical macro-nutrient intakes (in terms of protein, carbs, and fats) that there is going to be little difference in terms of bodily response to a given meal. There may be small differences mind you (and of course research supports that) but, overall, they are not large. And certainly not of the magnitude that many make it sound like"
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that characterization.
From how I read Lyle, he seems to say that a calorie of protein is a calorie of protein, a calorie of fat is a calorie of fat and a calorie of carbs is a calorie of carbs. To me, that's very different than saying a calorie is a calorie.0 -
We're just trying to argue that to have any noticable difference from the amount of weight loss, you'd have to have a completely unrealistic diet. 100% carbs, no fat, no protein or something like that. And even then your body would still catabolize a mix of muscle and body fat.Maximum weight loss is not the same as optimizing body composition. You've been consistent in confusing the argument. No one is arguing that different protein levels don't affect body composition and muscle loss.
I totally agree with you. My whole argument from the very beginning is that what you eat matters as well as how much you eat, and that has different impacts on weight loss. That was all. I gave protein as an easy example and explained the differences between fat loss and muscle loss.
Some have argued that what you eat makes absolutely no difference whatsoever -- it's all about total calories and that's it. That caloric deficit alone will determine weight loss. That I vehemently disagree with.0 -
I've seen 3500 thrown around for a pound of fat, and people take that as the gold standard (and what you've quoted as well), but I believe there have been some studies that have shown that isn't exactly true, and there has been a very wide range of estimations of how many calories it takes to build or lose a pound of muscle. There have also been studies that have shown that the ability to maintain muscle mass is far more dependent on muscle loading and activity levels. While the food you eat has some impact, it is greatly overshadowed by activity.
I have a PhD in genetics. What exactly was your point here?right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
Cool. Can you follow the science behind not every calorie is the same? That what you choose to eat impacts you're weight loss as well as it affects whether you catabolize muscle vs fat? Are you with me on that?
So yes, in theory you are partially right (and again, I'd need to check some studies for actual numbers), but in reality and actual people trying to lose weight; it may not matter as much as you say.
But, I'm assuming from how you've been arguing you're going to take that as a win.
Certainly true for sarcopenia in the elderly.0 -
Oh and to the OP
0 -
The amount of protein needed to have only a small amount of muscles catabolized is pretty low. Something like 60 grams I think. In most diets that is easily met. And even if not, it just simply doesn't happen that only muscle gets catabolized and no fat. So you'll end up at the approximate pound per 3500 calories one way or another.
Certainly debate over that, but the numbers I've generally seen have been much larger. I think the smallest I've seen is 0.7 g per lb of body weight.0 -
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
uh oh- gloves are off. LMAO
I agree with you. Just saying, challenge the premise, not the individual. Saying "well, 15 other people think you're wrong on a fitness website" isn't very convincing.
I don't know if you've noticed, but you are also a random person on the innanets. You could be a pooper scooper for all we know. I'd rather listen to what I've seen work for other people, and myself. But whatevs :-)0 -
My son falls in to that same category.
My reason for telling you this...
Sometimes he can't see the forest for the trees (or is that the trees for the forest?). He is so brilliant that at times...he can't see the things that are simple. In his mind...he looks for the complicated...at times he has trouble communicating his thoughts in a way that others can understand.
I have always told him...he is not a special snowflake...in the real world things don't always work as he thinks they should...and that he has trouble some times coming in out of the rain.
The other thing that I taught him...never make someone else feel less than simply because he is in that top 1%.
I generally agree with you. But when challenge with a herd mentality argument of sheer numbers (i.e. 15 say you're wrong = you must be wrong), I do feel it's fair to counter with a comparison of the individuals in that herd.0 -
Also a random person with no ticker or avi to show that their wealth of knowledge has translated to real world, visual results.right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
uh oh- gloves are off. LMAO
I agree with you. Just saying, challenge the premise, not the individual. Saying "well, 15 other people think you're wrong on a fitness website" isn't very convincing.
I don't know if you've noticed, but you are also a random person on the innanets. You could be a pooper scooper for all we know. I'd rather listen to what I've seen work for other people, and myself. But whatevs :-)0 -
We're just trying to argue that to have any noticable difference from the amount of weight loss, you'd have to have a completely unrealistic diet. 100% carbs, no fat, no protein or something like that. And even then your body would still catabolize a mix of muscle and body fat.Maximum weight loss is not the same as optimizing body composition. You've been consistent in confusing the argument. No one is arguing that different protein levels don't affect body composition and muscle loss.
I totally agree with you. My whole argument from the very beginning is that what you eat matters as well as how much you eat, and that has different impacts on weight loss. That was all. I gave protein as an easy example and explained the differences between fat loss and muscle loss.
Some have argued that what you eat makes absolutely no difference whatsoever -- it's all about total calories and that's it. That caloric deficit alone will determine weight loss. That I vehemently disagree with.
Well, that's not how I read the arguments, at all. I agree that there is a spectrum and where you fall on it is based on a variety of factors -- and one of that factors is the food you choose to eat to create that deficit.
So, although caloric deficit is undoubtedly important, so is the content of those calories that you do eat to create the deficit.0 -
I agree with you. Just saying, challenge the premise, not the individual. Saying "well, 15 other people think you're wrong on a fitness website" isn't very convincing.
I don't know if you've noticed, but you are also a random person on the innanets. You could be a pooper scooper for all we know. I'd rather listen to what I've seen work for other people, and myself. But whatevs :-)
I don't disagree with you. But, sometimes when you learn more, you change to maximize results. I didn't use to eat as much protein as I do now, for that specific reason. But, to each their own.0 -
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
uh oh- gloves are off. LMAO
I agree with you. Just saying, challenge the premise, not the individual. Saying "well, 15 other people think you're wrong on a fitness website" isn't very convincing.
I don't know if you've noticed, but you are also a random person on the innanets. You could be a pooper scooper for all we know. I'd rather listen to what I've seen work for other people, and myself. But whatevs :-)
I am a poop scooper and I feel offended.0 -
So now we've gone from "It's equally important" to "it will have some impact." That's a helluva backtrack.I've seen 3500 thrown around for a pound of fat, and people take that as the gold standard (and what you've quoted as well), but I believe there have been some studies that have shown that isn't exactly true, and there has been a very wide range of estimations of how many calories it takes to build or lose a pound of muscle. There have also been studies that have shown that the ability to maintain muscle mass is far more dependent on muscle loading and activity levels. While the food you eat has some impact, it is greatly overshadowed by activity.
So yes, in theory you are partially right (and again, I'd need to check some studies for actual numbers), but in reality and actual people trying to lose weight; it may not matter as much as you say.
But, I'm assuming from how you've been arguing you're going to take that as a win.
Yep, taking it as a win. I'm not arguing how much it will impact as that's going to vary a lot depending on a multitude of factors. Merely, that is does have an impact. Some have said that there is no impact, and that's what I've been trying to debunk with the explanations and variety of examples.0 -
Also a random person with no ticker or avi to show that their wealth of knowledge has translated to real world, visual results.I don't know if you've noticed, but you are also a random person on the innanets. You could be a pooper scooper for all we know. I'd rather listen to what I've seen work for other people, and myself. But whatevs :-)
So a picture with my shirt off would garner more legitimacy than the content of my arguments? Really?0 -
Oh. My. God. This is hysterical. I laughed so hard I think I peed a little.0 -
So now we've gone from "It's equally important" to "it will have some impact." That's a helluva backtrack.Yep, taking it as a win. I'm not arguing how much it will impact as that's going to vary a lot depending on a multitude of factors. Merely, that is does have an impact. Some have said that there is no impact, and that's what I've been trying to debunk with the explanations and variety of examples.
Nope, never a back track. Go back and look at all of my posts and you'll see that I've been consistent in that from the get-go.
I've never gotten into the idea of which is more important. My gut says that caloric deficit is probably more important, but I haven't seen any research that says one way or the other. I've merely been positing from the very beginning that quality is also an important factor, that quantity wasn't the ONLY important factor.0 -
Sure is.....Game Over!0
-
0 -
My son falls in to that same category.
My reason for telling you this...
Sometimes he can't see the forest for the trees (or is that the trees for the forest?). He is so brilliant that at times...he can't see the things that are simple. In his mind...he looks for the complicated...at times he has trouble communicating his thoughts in a way that others can understand.
I have always told him...he is not a special snowflake...in the real world things don't always work as he thinks they should...and that he has trouble some times coming in out of the rain.
The other thing that I taught him...never make someone else feel less than simply because he is in that top 1%.
I generally agree with you. But when challenge with a herd mentality argument of sheer numbers (i.e. 15 say you're wrong = you must be wrong), I do feel it's fair to counter with a comparison of the individuals in that herd.
The problem is that the only person for whom you actually know credentials is yourself. So you really cannot make a valid comparison to the individuals in the herd, their intelligence, or their level of education on the subject.0 -
Also a random person with no ticker or avi to show that their wealth of knowledge has translated to real world, visual results.I don't know if you've noticed, but you are also a random person on the innanets. You could be a pooper scooper for all we know. I'd rather listen to what I've seen work for other people, and myself. But whatevs :-)
So a picture with my shirt off would garner more legitimacy than the content of my arguments? Really?
I'm betting the picture of my back makes any advice I give about eating and workout advice more believable than your generic avatar because it's actual, physical proof that I know what I'm doing.0 -
My son falls in to that same category.
My reason for telling you this...
Sometimes he can't see the forest for the trees (or is that the trees for the forest?). He is so brilliant that at times...he can't see the things that are simple. In his mind...he looks for the complicated...at times he has trouble communicating his thoughts in a way that others can understand.
I have always told him...he is not a special snowflake...in the real world things don't always work as he thinks they should...and that he has trouble some times coming in out of the rain.
The other thing that I taught him...never make someone else feel less than simply because he is in that top 1%.
I generally agree with you. But when challenge with a herd mentality argument of sheer numbers (i.e. 15 say you're wrong = you must be wrong), I do feel it's fair to counter with a comparison of the individuals in that herd.
Except that you can't be sure of who is in that herd. :flowerforyou:0 -
My son falls in to that same category.
My reason for telling you this...
Sometimes he can't see the forest for the trees (or is that the trees for the forest?). He is so brilliant that at times...he can't see the things that are simple. In his mind...he looks for the complicated...at times he has trouble communicating his thoughts in a way that others can understand.
I have always told him...he is not a special snowflake...in the real world things don't always work as he thinks they should...and that he has trouble some times coming in out of the rain.
The other thing that I taught him...never make someone else feel less than simply because he is in that top 1%.
I generally agree with you. But when challenge with a herd mentality argument of sheer numbers (i.e. 15 say you're wrong = you must be wrong), I do feel it's fair to counter with a comparison of the individuals in that herd.
The problem is that the only person for whom you actually know credentials is yourself. So you really cannot make a valid comparison to the individuals in the herd, their intelligence, or their level of education on the subject.
True, true, but I was relying on statistics. Since I know I fall in the top 1%, what is the chance that the other supposed fifteen disagreeing with me fall into that same 1% and above me? Pretty rare from statistics alone. Throw in the content of such arguments, and it's less likely.
But even if I was the smartest person in the pond, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm correct on any assertion I make. That's why I feel it's better to focus on the content of the arguments as a general rule rather than any one person's credentials or the herd mentality.
Personally, I hate that sort of bullying behavior. X + my 15 friends agree with me = you're wrong. Debate the content, not by numbers.0 -
Exactly. Lindsey is making an awful lot of assumptions about this particular herd and where she fits into it.My son falls in to that same category.
My reason for telling you this...
Sometimes he can't see the forest for the trees (or is that the trees for the forest?). He is so brilliant that at times...he can't see the things that are simple. In his mind...he looks for the complicated...at times he has trouble communicating his thoughts in a way that others can understand.
I have always told him...he is not a special snowflake...in the real world things don't always work as he thinks they should...and that he has trouble some times coming in out of the rain.
The other thing that I taught him...never make someone else feel less than simply because he is in that top 1%.
I generally agree with you. But when challenge with a herd mentality argument of sheer numbers (i.e. 15 say you're wrong = you must be wrong), I do feel it's fair to counter with a comparison of the individuals in that herd.
Except that you can't be sure of who is in that herd. :flowerforyou:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions