A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE

SezxyStef

Then explain this statement in reference to them eating at MacDonalds 4-5x a week...based on this you believe that better quality foods help you lose weight faster but yet you say previous to this...it makes the weight loss slower as you are just losing fat not muscle...

so which is it? you lose weight faster by quality or is it the quality that makes you lose fat only therefore slowing weight loss????

Edit to fix quote

It's both, along with other individual factors, and depends on the individual. That's why a simple statement like "a calorie is a calorie" isn't true -- it's simply not that simple in regards to weight/fat/muscle loss. It's only true when you're talking about it in purely physicist terms as a unit of measurement.

so when you contradict yourself you back track and say both statements are correct when they are in complete opposition to each other...

okay gotcha...right fighters are always right

I bow out because I actually do have to do some heavy lifting now...

If nothing else (because lindsey is not educational) it's been entertaining to watch someone so doggidly say one thing then say the complete opposite and then say both are correct....:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

It's like arguing with my mother about religion...I would rather be happy lifting then be laughing at this charade of intelligence...

lindsey1979

What I've been saying over and over again is what you eat (i.e the type of calorie) impacts your weight loss. Period. Whether you lose more fat versus muscle is impacted by what you eat. Whether you lose more weight is based on whether you lose more muscle or fat (given the same caloric deficit). The more muscle you catabolize, the greater the actual weight loss is because a pound of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals whereas a lb of fat releases 3500 kcals.

so what's your theory on a pound of carrots? A pound of Almonds? a pound of rice?

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.

Once again, I'm not attacking your strategy or trying to invalidate it. I'm simply putting out the general premise, and how people interpret it differently results in many of the various eating strategies out there -- from IIFYM, to Paleo, to Atkins, etc.

Some are bunk and poorly premised, others make more sense. But they all rely on the basic idea that what calories you choose impact weight loss, though they all go about it in different ways (at least those aimed at losing weight). Debating the different strategies is a whole other hornet's nest, which I'm not trying to do here. Just point out that what you choose to eat makes a difference and it's not all just about gross caloric number (though that's important as well).

sassyjae21

Ehh...Ok- I don't have the background to argue with you. But I WILL say is that I just started about 4 months ago getting serious about losing weight. I started with about 10-15lbs to lose. I've lost 8 of it so far, by eating whatever I want, hitting my macros, and staying in a calorie deficit. I don't care where the calories come from as long as I stay under my limit. I have gained muscle from doing resistance training, and I feel great.

If all of what you are saying is true; with the results that I've gotten, how did it happen then? I eat fast food 4 and 5 times a week. All I do is stay under my calorie goal. Because of my results, I can without a doubt say, that for weight loss; it just doesn't matter.

You just said a calorie deficit is neccesary for weight loss. That's really all that matters.

I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.

As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).

But you don't know my body comp? So how can you even say that?

With as little weight to lose as I have to lose; doing it any faster is unhealthy.

I didn't. That's why I only posited it as a possibility. And, as I said, it varies with the individual because there are a lot of factors at play.

When you say things like "doing it any faster is unhealthy" requires certain assumptions. And when those assumptions differ between people, you get different results. As a general rule, I think it's likely true for most people and that's why it's often stated as such. But there are always exceptions to every general rule -- and for good reason.

Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.

SezxyStef

Ehh...Ok- I don't have the background to argue with you. But I WILL say is that I just started about 4 months ago getting serious about losing weight. I started with about 10-15lbs to lose. I've lost 8 of it so far, by eating whatever I want, hitting my macros, and staying in a calorie deficit. I don't care where the calories come from as long as I stay under my limit. I have gained muscle from doing resistance training, and I feel great.

If all of what you are saying is true; with the results that I've gotten, how did it happen then? I eat fast food 4 and 5 times a week. All I do is stay under my calorie goal. Because of my results, I can without a doubt say, that for weight loss; it just doesn't matter.

You just said a calorie deficit is neccesary for weight loss. That's really all that matters.

I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.

As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).

But you don't know my body comp? So how can you even say that?

With as little weight to lose as I have to lose; doing it any faster is unhealthy.

I didn't. That's why I only posited it as a possibility. And, as I said, it varies with the individual because there are a lot of factors at play.

When you say things like "doing it any faster is unhealthy" requires certain assumptions. And when those assumptions differ between people, you get different results. As a general rule, I think it's likely true for most people and that's why it's often stated as such. But there are always exceptions to every general rule -- and for good reason.

Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.

Previous to this she also said quality makes it slower so ...who knows wth she is trying to say.

tigersword

Not really true either. If you just wanted to lose weight, then you'd actually want to increase your muscle loss as that will produce the most bang for your buck for your deficit. So, it matters there as well (though, obviously, I think that's a horrible strategy).

Not to mention if you don't get some baseline protein and fat in, you'll hurt your weight loss efforts as the body needs some essential fatty acids and essential amino acids on a regular basis. You'll totally screw up your system if you only ate 100% carbs, calorie deficit or not.

Okay what you just said makes no sense as a response to what I said...honestly...again you are talking about the quality of weight loss not just weight loss...

You always seem to "twist" things to make it "appear' you are correct...you are wrong...so dead wrong even zombies think you are one of them...

We are talking about losing weight..not the quality of the weight...

If I want to lose 10lbs and I don't care where it comes from I will eat in a calorie deficet...
if I want to lose 10lbs of fat I will eat in a calorie deficet and watch my macros and lift heavy, and I can do that while eating all my protien from Dairy Queen or MacDonalds or KFC or Taco bell...

I really don't understand how you can't follow this.

You need to be in a deficit either way. But depending on what you eat, you will achieve different results.

If you only want to lose weight -- but don't care how much or what percentage is fat versus LBM -- then, yes, you only need a deficit.

If you want to impact HOW you lose the weight or HOW MUCH weight you lose, then you need to focus on what you're eating as well as the deficit. That's all I'm saying -- that what you eat affects weight loss.

I didn't say I didn't follow it I said it made no sense in response to what I said...in other words you are reaching again.

And no you wont have different results as far as weight loss goes.

If people eat 500 calories a day below maintenance regardless of where the food comes from and regardless of if they watch their macros will average 1lb a week weight loss...period.

What the weight is that is lost is defined by the macros...

And that's where you're wrong. 3500 deficit will not equal 1 lb of weight loss. It will equal 1 lb of weight loss if 100% of what is lost is FAT. If it's muscle, it will result in 2.3 - 5.8 lbs of weight loss.

1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. 1 lb of muscle releases far fewer --- somewhere between 600 and 1500.

Lyle does a really good job of explaining it here (as apparently I'm failing miserably at it):
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

Why are you arguing about hypothetical things that don't happen in the real world? And why are you picking articles that don't actually support your point?

From the article

Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week.

Never happens, so it's a pointless thing to try and argue.

Also, from the article:

Changes in SPA/NEAT can vary hugely and explain most of the discrepancies in expected vs. actual weight gain.

In other words, Lyle specifically states that gaining or losing faster or slower than expected is due to daily activity, NOT specific food or nutrient combinations. This article doesn't support any of your claims.

And finally

Most claims that the energy balance equation is invalid are due to people simply not knowing what they are talking about. The equation is valid, it has to be, what’s invalid are people’s assumptions about how things should work.

In other words, a calorie is a calorie, and people who say otherwise don't know what they are talking about. So you actually linked an article in an attempt to prove your point that actually went ahead and said that your argument is wrong and you don't know what you're talking about. Kind of amusing, really. :laugh:

lindsey1979

Again quality of the weight loss over quantity argument does not prove your point...

as the article says 100% muscle loss will never happen...

and notice I said "average" 1lb a week...why because no one is perfect.

The quality directly impacts the quantity. The better quality weight loss (i.e. more fat), the less actual weight loss because of the differences between muscle and fat.

The only thing it doesn't impact is the yes/no binary-ness of whether weight loss occurs. In both scenarios, weight loss occurs. But how much occurs and whether that's fat vs. muscle depends on what you're eating (along with other individual factors).

sassyjae21

Ehh...Ok- I don't have the background to argue with you. But I WILL say is that I just started about 4 months ago getting serious about losing weight. I started with about 10-15lbs to lose. I've lost 8 of it so far, by eating whatever I want, hitting my macros, and staying in a calorie deficit. I don't care where the calories come from as long as I stay under my limit. I have gained muscle from doing resistance training, and I feel great.

If all of what you are saying is true; with the results that I've gotten, how did it happen then? I eat fast food 4 and 5 times a week. All I do is stay under my calorie goal. Because of my results, I can without a doubt say, that for weight loss; it just doesn't matter.

You just said a calorie deficit is neccesary for weight loss. That's really all that matters.

I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.

As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).

But you don't know my body comp? So how can you even say that?

With as little weight to lose as I have to lose; doing it any faster is unhealthy.

I didn't. That's why I only posited it as a possibility. And, as I said, it varies with the individual because there are a lot of factors at play.

When you say things like "doing it any faster is unhealthy" requires certain assumptions. And when those assumptions differ between people, you get different results. As a general rule, I think it's likely true for most people and that's why it's often stated as such. But there are always exceptions to every general rule -- and for good reason.

Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.

Previous to this she also said quality makes it slower so ...who knows wth she is trying to say.

Yea, I'm out at this point lol. I know less now than I did before I came in here. This is why these types of threads are dangerous to people and why I pointed that out in the beginning. ugh

ndj1979

Not really true either. If you just wanted to lose weight, then you'd actually want to increase your muscle loss as that will produce the most bang for your buck for your deficit. So, it matters there as well (though, obviously, I think that's a horrible strategy).

Not to mention if you don't get some baseline protein and fat in, you'll hurt your weight loss efforts as the body needs some essential fatty acids and essential amino acids on a regular basis. You'll totally screw up your system if you only ate 100% carbs, calorie deficit or not.

Okay what you just said makes no sense as a response to what I said...honestly...again you are talking about the quality of weight loss not just weight loss...

You always seem to "twist" things to make it "appear' you are correct...you are wrong...so dead wrong even zombies think you are one of them...

We are talking about losing weight..not the quality of the weight...

If I want to lose 10lbs and I don't care where it comes from I will eat in a calorie deficet...
if I want to lose 10lbs of fat I will eat in a calorie deficet and watch my macros and lift heavy, and I can do that while eating all my protien from Dairy Queen or MacDonalds or KFC or Taco bell...

I really don't understand how you can't follow this.

You need to be in a deficit either way. But depending on what you eat, you will achieve different results.

If you only want to lose weight -- but don't care how much or what percentage is fat versus LBM -- then, yes, you only need a deficit.

If you want to impact HOW you lose the weight or HOW MUCH weight you lose, then you need to focus on what you're eating as well as the deficit. That's all I'm saying -- that what you eat affects weight loss.

I didn't say I didn't follow it I said it made no sense in response to what I said...in other words you are reaching again.

And no you wont have different results as far as weight loss goes.

If people eat 500 calories a day below maintenance regardless of where the food comes from and regardless of if they watch their macros will average 1lb a week weight loss...period.

What the weight is that is lost is defined by the macros...

And that's where you're wrong. 3500 deficit will not equal 1 lb of weight loss. It will equal 1 lb of weight loss if 100% of what is lost is FAT. If it's muscle, it will result in 2.3 - 5.8 lbs of weight loss.

1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. 1 lb of muscle releases far fewer --- somewhere between 600 and 1500.

Lyle does a really good job of explaining it here (as apparently I'm failing miserably at it):
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

Why are you arguing about hypothetical things that don't happen in the real world? And why are you picking articles that don't actually support your point?

From the article

Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week.

Never happens, so it's a pointless thing to try and argue.

Also, from the article:

Changes in SPA/NEAT can vary hugely and explain most of the discrepancies in expected vs. actual weight gain.

In other words, Lyle specifically states that gaining or losing faster or slower than expected is due to daily activity, NOT specific food or nutrient combinations. This article doesn't support any of your claims.

And finally

Most claims that the energy balance equation is invalid are due to people simply not knowing what they are talking about. The equation is valid, it has to be, what’s invalid are people’s assumptions about how things should work.

In other words, a calorie is a calorie, and people who say otherwise don't know what they are talking about. So you actually linked an article in an attempt to prove your point that actually went ahead and said that your argument is wrong and you don't know what you're talking about. Kind of amusing, really. :laugh:

don't waste your time brother..she is never wrong...must be nice..

lindsey1979

Then explain this statement in reference to them eating at MacDonalds 4-5x a week...based on this you believe that better quality foods help you lose weight faster but yet you say previous to this...it makes the weight loss slower as you are just losing fat not muscle...

so which is it? you lose weight faster by quality or is it the quality that makes you lose fat only therefore slowing weight loss????

Edit to fix quote

It's both, along with other individual factors, and depends on the individual. That's why a simple statement like "a calorie is a calorie" isn't true -- it's simply not that simple in regards to weight/fat/muscle loss. It's only true when you're talking about it in purely physicist terms as a unit of measurement.

so when you contradict yourself you back track and say both statements are correct when they are in complete opposition to each other...

okay gotcha...right fighters are always right

I bow out because I actually do have to do some heavy lifting now...

If nothing else (because lindsey is not educational) it's been entertaining to watch someone so doggidly say one thing then say the complete opposite and then say both are correct....:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

It's like arguing with my mother about religion...I would rather be happy lifting then be laughing at this charade of intelligence...

Where is their a contradiction? I've been saying the same thing ALL the time. That they're both important. I've just been debunking the idea that quality isn't important and the only thing that is important is quantity. Consistent the ENTIRE time.

lindsey1979

I didn't. That's why I only posited it as a possibility. And, as I said, it varies with the individual because there are a lot of factors at play.

When you say things like "doing it any faster is unhealthy" requires certain assumptions. And when those assumptions differ between people, you get different results. As a general rule, I think it's likely true for most people and that's why it's often stated as such. But there are always exceptions to every general rule -- and for good reason.

Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.

But I said "maybe". Maybe you would have lost it faster. Maybe you would have lost more fat rathe than muscle. Maybe you would have a better body comp right now. Maybe.

trojan_bb

OP, did you even read your link? It does nothing to discredit the fact that weight loss is based upon calorie consumption. Period. It merely states that different degrees of weight loss can occur at varying macro-nutrient levels and ratio's. Then it talks about different correlations based on food types. obviously, this is not causation, just observational correlations.

Calorie is a calorie. This is self evident. It's a measure of energy.

LiftAllThePizzas

WOW WHAT A NEWSFLASH THAT CONTEXT AND DOSAGE ARE IMPORTANT IN NUTRITION. THANKS SO MUCH OP FOR THIS GROUNDBREAKING INFORMATION.

lindsey1979

Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.

Previous to this she also said quality makes it slower so ...who knows wth she is trying to say.

For the same caloric deficit, focusing on quality will make weight loss slower -- because you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle. And when you catabolize more fat and less muscle for the same calorie deficit, you will have less weight loss (because 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals where as 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals). Just basic math.

It really isn't that hard, people.

lindsey1979

In other words, a calorie is a calorie, and people who say otherwise don't know what they are talking about. So you actually linked an article in an attempt to prove your point that actually went ahead and said that your argument is wrong and you don't know what you're talking about. Kind of amusing, really. :laugh:

If you can't understand the difference of losing fat versus muscle and how that impacts weight loss, I can't help you.

And, Lyle also pointed out how there were other factors that impacted it. If you look he specifically talks about diets with the same MACRO nutrient profiles. So, obviously he supports the idea of what you eat is important. That no every calorie is the same.

Poor reading comprehension.

sassyjae21

I didn't. That's why I only posited it as a possibility. And, as I said, it varies with the individual because there are a lot of factors at play.

When you say things like "doing it any faster is unhealthy" requires certain assumptions. And when those assumptions differ between people, you get different results. As a general rule, I think it's likely true for most people and that's why it's often stated as such. But there are always exceptions to every general rule -- and for good reason.

Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.

But I said "maybe". Maybe you would have lost it faster. Maybe you would have lost more fat rathe than muscle. Maybe you would have a better body comp right now. Maybe.

Maybe does not equal scientific fact . With that said, I would rather eat the way I eat, enjoy my life, eat fast foods whenever I want, and stay under my calorie goal and still lose weight than to restrict a certain type of foods for some "maybe" results that probably won't happen.

ndj1979

Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.

Previous to this she also said quality makes it slower so ...who knows wth she is trying to say.

For the same caloric deficit, focusing on quality will make weight loss slower -- because you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle. And when you catabolize more fat and less muscle for the same calorie deficit, you will have less weight loss (because 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals where as 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals). Just basic math.

It really isn't that hard, people.

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..

sassyjae21

Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.

Previous to this she also said quality makes it slower so ...who knows wth she is trying to say.

For the same caloric deficit, focusing on quality will make weight loss slower -- because you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle. And when you catabolize more fat and less muscle for the same calorie deficit, you will have less weight loss (because 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals where as 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals). Just basic math.

It really isn't that hard, people.

dafuq?? You just told me earlier had I focused on quality, maybe I would be at goal by now?? Now you're saying it would be slower?

lindsey1979

don't waste your time brother..she is never wrong...must be nice..

Actually I admitted to being wrong on this very thread about the McDonald's burger hoax.

I have no problem admitting I'm wrong -- that's how you learn and evolve.

But, I am right about the biology here. Some you either can't follow it or you refuse to because it interferes with your more comforting, but factually inaccurate life view that all calories are created equal.

lindsey1979

OP, did you even read your link? It does nothing to discredit the fact that weight loss is based upon calorie consumption. Period. It merely states that different degrees of weight loss can occur at varying macro-nutrient levels and ratio's. Then it talks about different correlations based on food types. obviously, this is not causation, just observational correlations.

Calorie is a calorie. This is self evident. It's a measure of energy.

Right, so if macros are important, aren't calories as well? Is that the basis of following certain macros? If they weren't, then macros wouldn't matter either because, as you say, a calorie is a calorie.

trojan_bb

The message everyone must take is weight loss and good nutrition is LESS about quantity and MORE about quality. I'm sure everyone with common sense gets it. It is just a matter of implementing it ... it's difficult because of all the junk that has been snuck into our foods... But we will get there.

I am so happy that the word is coming out about this. It's about time.

Conflation. Weight Loss and "good nutrition" are only slightly related. Achieving optimal weight loss and body composition is mostly independent of any focus on nutrition, quality of food source, etc, unless there is some major absence of a critical nutrient, which is rare.