A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE

Sreneesa

This isn't real.. lmao

Really,, come on Lindsey. This is the second topic I have seen you go on for page after page after page... don't you get tired of going back and forth. My goodness luv.

Hugs sent you way.

Edit: and a drink! :drinker: :happy:

sassyjae21

Lolz this bad boy has been going for hours!!

I would like to apologize to any and all pooper scoopers I may have offended in my earlier post. :bigsmile:

Thank you I felt so offended :sad:

Huehuehue

Lleldiranne

It rolled? I shouldn't be surprised...

scottkjar

This debate has been continuing for thousands of years:

"A [calorie] is A [calorie]." - Aristotle

tigersword

I don't mind it as a part of the discussion, it's the hypocrisy that drives me a little nuts. Apparently it's okay for someone to defend his statements by saying that everyone agrees with him, so obviously I must be dumb and wrong. But to counter by by pointing out a weakness of his argumens, namely that the people who agreed with him may not be of equal intelligence to me, that's terribly uncouth. The whole point was that the number of people who agree or disagree on this thread does not impact the objective reality of the facts.

Oh, I don't think him saying that proved that you were dumb and wrong. I just didn't see it necessary to expend any energy to debate the point, since you made your point already (without your personal remarks about intelligence.)

I actually thought you were articulating your points on the quality/rate of loss issue quite well.

I don't care who would be decided as "right" in this thread. I agree that quality matters, and I agree that people can get thin on a crap diet too.

Without naming names, at least one or two of the people in particular that you may have implied you were smarter than are actually brilliant.

I don't dispute some people's overall brilliance. Some would consider me brilliant in certain areas and a complete lunkhead in others. I think that can apply to many people.

But, to the extent that people were disagreeing with my points, they're simply incorrect, whether they're brilliant or not. I'm glad you were able to follow them because some seem to think that they were very confusing.

Some tried to twist things or extrapolate further than I stated to make completely different points. It seems that either people do that intentionally as a strawman/red herring or they simply can't understand the nuance of the arguments.

I understand that simple is desirable in many things. But incorrect oversimplification can be very dangerous too, and that's the issue I have with the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" statement because it demands that all calories are the same in regards to weight loss, and that's just not accurate.

Sarauk2sf

*sigh*

A calorie is a calorie, just as a pint is a pint.

The food/macro from which that calorie is derived is different (just as a pint of beer is different to a pint of vodka). The impact of the source of the calorie on energy output, health and body composition is not the same.

SpencersHeart

What's the "quality" calorie that is going to help me lose weight faster? Just wondering

jofjltncb6

In.


I'm only up to this post in the previous part:

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).

I'm interested to see where the thread goes from there.

ETA: My IQ is 147. Not sure how that's relevant to...well, anything really...but it seemed like it might be in this thread. *shrug*

ndj1979

in…for the roll…

for the record, I never questioned geniuses intelligence…i simply said that us simpletons are not smart enough to comprehend her brilliance...

srr728

going to make some cinnamon rolls for all you guys and gals now

Charlottesometimes23

I can't believe I missed this! I tried to read backwards from part one and it had somehow morphed into a debate about IQ and Bachelor degrees so I gave up. :laugh:

Can someone give me a quick run down pretty please.

lemonsnowdrop

I can't believe I missed this! I tried to read backwards from part one and it had somehow morphed into a debate about IQ and Bachelor degrees so I gave up. :laugh:

Can someone give me a quick run down pretty please.

OP of last topic made this argument and then someone came in, hijacked the thread and had been arguing the same point since.

_HeartsOnFire_

roll?

neandermagnon

I can't believe I missed this! I tried to read backwards from part one and it had somehow morphed into a debate about IQ and Bachelor degrees so I gave up. :laugh:

Can someone give me a quick run down pretty please.

OP of last topic made this argument and then someone came in, hijacked the thread and had been arguing the same point since.

then when a lot of people were arguing with her, she said she was right because she has a high IQ and a degree in biology, hence the derailment of the thread in the direction of bachelor degrees and IQ

and it seems that the gifs have started now :drinker:

neandermagnon

roll?

Lemurs are dull. Bonobos are much more interesting (though I wouldn't recommend humans trying to have adventures *with* bonobos, that probably won't end well for the human).

_HeartsOnFire_

roll?

Lemurs are dull. Bonobos are much more interesting (though I wouldn't recommend humans trying to have adventures *with* bonobos, that probably won't end well for the human).

EvgeniZyntx

In for Whorf Hole!

DamePiglet

Lets face it, most of us knew this thread was going to be gif-a-paloosa from the title.

Anything said past page one was going to be either a repeat of something already said or a derailment.
This thread probably should have been posted in chit chat from the start.

ndj1979

I can't believe I missed this! I tried to read backwards from part one and it had somehow morphed into a debate about IQ and Bachelor degrees so I gave up. :laugh:

Can someone give me a quick run down pretty please.

OP of last topic made this argument and then someone came in, hijacked the thread and had been arguing the same point since.

then when a lot of people were arguing with her, she said she was right because she has a high IQ and a degree in biology, hence the derailment of the thread in the direction of bachelor degrees and IQ

and it seems that the gifs have started now :drinker:

I think it got derailed on page seven ….

yes, more gifs..for the love of god, more gifs!!!

Cortelli

Lindsey – I follow what you’re saying and arguing.

But somewhere in your logical chain, you forgot to double-check actual outcomes with your hypothesized chain of outcomes.

Going back to your first post in the original thread:

For example, it has been shown that one way to minimize LBM loss while in a caloric deficit is to eat a certain amount of protein. If all calories were created equal, this wouldn't matter. But, it does. So, although "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is nice for its simplicity and definitely gets the message across that quantity of calories does matter, it's simply incorrect as pertains to metabolism, body composition, fat/muscle loss and health. And, really, isn't that what we're truly interested in?

[. . .] [The type of exercise] won't result in the same weight loss as it affects how much muscle vs. fat is metabolized -- and the more muscle you lose vs. fat, the more weight you will lose as a lb of fat metabolizes 3500 calories and a lb of muscle releases considerably fewer (somewhere in the 600-1500 calorie range). So if you're losing a higher percentage of fat, the scale will go down more slowly compared with someone that is losing more muscle.

And this point was belabored and remade over the course of 15 pages of comments and back and forth. If only we had some studies to validate this. Oh, wait, we do - a pair of studies that you posted regarding effects of a higher protein diet in caloric deficit and body composition / weight loss. Let's see what they say. Study 1 (emphasis mine):

A gradual loss of body weight (overall average rate of −0.39 ± 0.02 kg/wk) was observed in all subjects regardless of protein intake. Furthermore, at the end of the 12-week intervention, weight loss was not different between the HP and NP groups (Table 1). All groups lost significant amounts of fat mass (main effect of time: p < 0.001) and LBM (main effect of time: p < 0.001) throughout the 12-week intervention (Table 1). The HP had greater preservation of LBM compared with NP (time by protein interaction: p < 0.05).

Hmmm . . . the high protein and normal protein diets lost the same amount of weight over the course of the study. But the HP dieters preserved more LBM. Seems they should have lost more slowly, or lost less than the normal protein dieters.

And from the second sturdy (emphasis mine):

All groups lost significant body weight during the 16-wk treatment period. Body weight changes were larger (P < 0.05) in the groups consuming the higher-protein, reduced-carbohydrate diet (Table 3). The PRO and PRO + EX groups had a weight loss of 9.3 ± 0.8 kg after 16 wk, whereas the CHO and CHO + EX groups reduced body weight by 7.3 ± 0.5 kg (P < 0.05).

[. . .]

Changes in lean mass reflected a significant positive effect of the exercise program (P < 0.001) and a trend for a beneficial effect of the PRO diet (P = 0.10) during weight loss (Table 3). Notably the PRO + EX group had no significant change in lean mass (−0.9%; P = 0.39), whereas the CHO group had the largest decrease in lean mass (−5.4%; P = < 0.001).

Wait, what? The higher protein dieters lost more weight in the same amount of time? Even though they preserved a greater proportion of their LBM?

The very studies you posted to show the positive effects on body composition from increased protein intake and resistance training during a caloric deficit also tend to show the opposite of your fundamental argument here. I don't get it.

Finally (for me), it's not clear whether you are agreeing with Joanne that "quality" in the sense of no evil food companies involved and no added sugar (i.e., shopping the walls of your grocery store), or you are instead using "quality" where I might use "nature of the food delivering the calorie" (i.e., protein versus carb versus fat versus alcohol). If the later, I'm not sure very many folks saying a calorie is a calorie disagree that there are different overall health and body comp issues associated with different macro intakes, particularly during an overall caloric deficit.

Anyway, onwards to the gifs (and that Godzilla one is epic).

ndj1979

Lindsey – I follow what you’re saying and arguing.

But somewhere in your logical chain, you forgot to double-check actual outcomes with your hypothesized chain of outcomes.

Going back to your first post in the original thread:

For example, it has been shown that one way to minimize LBM loss while in a caloric deficit is to eat a certain amount of protein. If all calories were created equal, this wouldn't matter. But, it does. So, although "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is nice for its simplicity and definitely gets the message across that quantity of calories does matter, it's simply incorrect as pertains to metabolism, body composition, fat/muscle loss and health. And, really, isn't that what we're truly interested in?

[. . .] [The type of exercise] won't result in the same weight loss as it affects how much muscle vs. fat is metabolized -- and the more muscle you lose vs. fat, the more weight you will lose as a lb of fat metabolizes 3500 calories and a lb of muscle releases considerably fewer (somewhere in the 600-1500 calorie range). So if you're losing a higher percentage of fat, the scale will go down more slowly compared with someone that is losing more muscle.

And this point was belabored and remade over the course of 15 pages of comments and back and forth. If only we had some studies to validate this. Oh, wait, we do - a pair of studies that you posted regarding effects of a higher protein diet in caloric deficit and body composition / weight loss. Let's see what they say. Study 1 (emphasis mine):

A gradual loss of body weight (overall average rate of −0.39 ± 0.02 kg/wk) was observed in all subjects regardless of protein intake. Furthermore, at the end of the 12-week intervention, weight loss was not different between the HP and NP groups (Table 1). All groups lost significant amounts of fat mass (main effect of time: p < 0.001) and LBM (main effect of time: p < 0.001) throughout the 12-week intervention (Table 1). The HP had greater preservation of LBM compared with NP (time by protein interaction: p < 0.05).

Hmmm . . . the high protein and normal protein diets lost the same amount of weight over the course of the study. But the HP dieters preserved more LBM. Seems they should have lost more slowly, or lost less than the normal protein dieters.

And from the second sturdy (emphasis mine):

All groups lost significant body weight during the 16-wk treatment period. Body weight changes were larger (P < 0.05) in the groups consuming the higher-protein, reduced-carbohydrate diet (Table 3). The PRO and PRO + EX groups had a weight loss of 9.3 ± 0.8 kg after 16 wk, whereas the CHO and CHO + EX groups reduced body weight by 7.3 ± 0.5 kg (P < 0.05).

[. . .]

Changes in lean mass reflected a significant positive effect of the exercise program (P < 0.001) and a trend for a beneficial effect of the PRO diet (P = 0.10) during weight loss (Table 3). Notably the PRO + EX group had no significant change in lean mass (−0.9%; P = 0.39), whereas the CHO group had the largest decrease in lean mass (−5.4%; P = < 0.001).

Wait, what? The higher protein dieters lost more weight in the same amount of time? Even though they preserved a greater proportion of their LBM?

The very studies you posted to show the positive effects on body composition from increased protein intake and resistance training during a caloric deficit also tend to show the opposite of your fundamental argument here. I don't get it.

Finally (for me), it's not clear whether you are agreeing with Joanne that "quality" in the sense of no evil food companies involved and no added sugar (i.e., shopping the walls of your grocery store), or you are instead using "quality" where I might use "nature of the food delivering the calorie" (i.e., protein versus carb versus fat versus alcohol). If the later, I'm not sure very many folks saying a calorie is a calorie disagree that there are different overall health and body comp issues associated with different macro intakes, particularly during an overall caloric deficit.

Anyway, onwards to the gifs (and that Godzilla one is epic).

does not matter bro ..she is still right…you misunderstood her …LOL

neandermagnon

roll?

Lemurs are dull. Bonobos are much more interesting (though I wouldn't recommend humans trying to have adventures *with* bonobos, that probably won't end well for the human).

no, don't go just because I think lemurs are boring :flowerforyou: it's just my opinion

I wanted to post a pic of bonobos, but couldn't find any pics that didn't break the MFP community guidelines, but I found this cartoon instead:

kjo9692

Is Lindsey ever coming back??

lindsey1979

Lindsey – I follow what you’re saying and arguing.

But somewhere in your logical chain, you forgot to double-check actual outcomes with your hypothesized chain of outcomes.

Going back to your first post in the original thread:

For example, it has been shown that one way to minimize LBM loss while in a caloric deficit is to eat a certain amount of protein. If all calories were created equal, this wouldn't matter. But, it does. So, although "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is nice for its simplicity and definitely gets the message across that quantity of calories does matter, it's simply incorrect as pertains to metabolism, body composition, fat/muscle loss and health. And, really, isn't that what we're truly interested in?

[. . .] [The type of exercise] won't result in the same weight loss as it affects how much muscle vs. fat is metabolized -- and the more muscle you lose vs. fat, the more weight you will lose as a lb of fat metabolizes 3500 calories and a lb of muscle releases considerably fewer (somewhere in the 600-1500 calorie range). So if you're losing a higher percentage of fat, the scale will go down more slowly compared with someone that is losing more muscle.

And this point was belabored and remade over the course of 15 pages of comments and back and forth. If only we had some studies to validate this. Oh, wait, we do - a pair of studies that you posted regarding effects of a higher protein diet in caloric deficit and body composition / weight loss. Let's see what they say. Study 1 (emphasis mine):

A gradual loss of body weight (overall average rate of −0.39 ± 0.02 kg/wk) was observed in all subjects regardless of protein intake. Furthermore, at the end of the 12-week intervention, weight loss was not different between the HP and NP groups (Table 1). All groups lost significant amounts of fat mass (main effect of time: p < 0.001) and LBM (main effect of time: p < 0.001) throughout the 12-week intervention (Table 1). The HP had greater preservation of LBM compared with NP (time by protein interaction: p < 0.05).

Hmmm . . . the high protein and normal protein diets lost the same amount of weight over the course of the study. But the HP dieters preserved more LBM. Seems they should have lost more slowly, or lost less than the normal protein dieters.

And from the second sturdy (emphasis mine):

All groups lost significant body weight during the 16-wk treatment period. Body weight changes were larger (P < 0.05) in the groups consuming the higher-protein, reduced-carbohydrate diet (Table 3). The PRO and PRO + EX groups had a weight loss of 9.3 ± 0.8 kg after 16 wk, whereas the CHO and CHO + EX groups reduced body weight by 7.3 ± 0.5 kg (P < 0.05).

[. . .]

Changes in lean mass reflected a significant positive effect of the exercise program (P < 0.001) and a trend for a beneficial effect of the PRO diet (P = 0.10) during weight loss (Table 3). Notably the PRO + EX group had no significant change in lean mass (−0.9%; P = 0.39), whereas the CHO group had the largest decrease in lean mass (−5.4%; P = < 0.001).

Wait, what? The higher protein dieters lost more weight in the same amount of time? Even though they preserved a greater proportion of their LBM?

The very studies you posted to show the positive effects on body composition from increased protein intake and resistance training during a caloric deficit also tend to show the opposite of your fundamental argument here. I don't get it.

Finally (for me), it's not clear whether you are agreeing with Joanne that "quality" in the sense of no evil food companies involved and no added sugar (i.e., shopping the walls of your grocery store), or you are instead using "quality" where I might use "nature of the food delivering the calorie" (i.e., protein versus carb versus fat versus alcohol). If the later, I'm not sure very many folks saying a calorie is a calorie disagree that there are different overall health and body comp issues associated with different macro intakes, particularly during an overall caloric deficit.

Anyway, onwards to the gifs (and that Godzilla one is epic).

On the studies, the way I interpret them, is that there are two things going on: (1) weight loss and (2) LBM maintenance. The PRO groups lost more weight than the CHO groups while also maintaining more LBM (or in the first study's case, lost the same), so that means that the PRO groups actually lost a LOT more FAT than the CHO (or "normal") groups. I was trying to not couple these (maintain LBM and increased fat loss) as I thought it would muddy the waters because weight loss has a couple factors that affect the numbers on the scale -- (1) muscle loss, (2) fat loss and (3) water retention. People with more CHO in their diets, retain more water, correct? That's why you see a huge initial weight loss in ketogenic/carb restricted diets -- it's that loss of 5-7+ lbs of water, right? I wasn't sure if they accounted for that in their weight loss numbers or not, in either study, so that can skew the weight loss results whereas when measuring for LBM, that's always apples to apples. So, I was using the study to emphasize the maintenance of LBM in the PRO groups rather than discussing the weight/fat issue as it's not as straightforward. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but that's how I read it.

And I have seen several sources showing that the catabolization of 1 lb muscle releases 600-1500 kcals whereas 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals, and I don't think anyone is disputing that. So, if the PRO group also lost more or the same weight than the CHO.normal groups while maintaining a greater amount of LBM, they lost a LOT more lbs of fat (or possibly water). That tracks, right?

In the end, I was just trying to take an easy illustration to show that not all calories are created equal, especially as regards macros. So caloric deficit while important (and likely essential for weight loss) is not the only factor that determines (1) how much weight you lose and (2) what type of weight you lose (i.e. muscle vs fat). There are several other factors that affect that, including the type of food/calories you eat.

I didn't even want to get into the "clean" debate, as I think there is less research on it and the effects are likely less dramatic than macros differences. For me, I think it's possible that it tracks the idea of macros as well -- that "cleaner" food may result in greater weight loss/fat loss. The more nutrient dense food you eat, the less total calories you likely will need to eat to feel full, satiated and meet your nutrient requirements (essential fatty acids, essential amino acids, vitamins, minerals ,etc.). I've seen theories on that -- that too many modern diets have too much low nutrient food. So to get all the nutrients you need, your body will crave more of the food and people end of overeating (or just really hungry while on a diet -- and that's one reason why such a lifestyle is difficult to sustain longterm). Now, I haven't seen any study on that, just theories people have discussed. But, to me, that seems plausible and why you MAY benefit from focusing on nutrient dense food as opposed to food with low nutrient count (i.e. lots of empty calories) for (1) satiety and (2) essential nutrients, especially while in a caloric deficit. But, once again, I haven't seen any studies on that per se -- or don't remember any that were cited by people discussing the theory. If anyone knows of any, I'd love to read them.

Cortelli

On the studies, the way I interpret them . . . [snip]

I don't think the water retention / low carb effect is really playing a significant role here, if any. These diets aren't low carb. In the first study, the HP subjects are consuming approx. 175 grs of carbs, around 45% of their caloric intake (and around 1.5x as much as their protein). This is not Atkins / Keto lose all your glycogen and corresponding water territory. Looks to be roughly the same in the second study (with carb:pro ration at 1.5 or less).

I really don't know about the catabolization of LBM and energy yields. I have not seen 600 - 1500 kcals but that's because I really haven't seen anything other than what you linked to in part 1 of this thread.

I guess what I'm getting at is that sure, macro components affect what type of weight you lose - less so, I think than resistance activity does for LBM preservation, but sure, adequate protein assists in this - but it is not at all clear to me, based on empirical results that you've referenced or that I've seen elsewhere, that the thrust of what I took your argument to be is accurate -- that a focus on losing body fat and absolutely minimizing loss of LBM means overall weight loss will be slower / take longer. Maybe the 600 - 1500 kcals is wrong; maybe the human organism is so complex we're all missing something, but demonstrably it seems to me that the original premise is wrong.

And I won't prolong the semantic stuff, but I guess I will remain of the view that "a calorie is a calorie" while also maintaining a view that the proportion of macronutrients consumed, particularly while in a caloric deficit, affect body composition. And I will decidedly not adopt the view, at least not yet, espoused by the OP (both in this particular thread and in the numerous others she favors regarding added sugars, processed food, etc.). And I'll keep up with a high protein diet and progressive overload resistance training 'cause I think that offers up the best approach to achieve the goals I want to achieve.

lindsey1979

On the studies, the way I interpret them . . . [snip]

I don't think the water retention / low carb effect is really playing a significant role here, if any. These diets aren't low carb. In the first study, the HP subjects are consuming approx. 175 grs of carbs, around 45% of their caloric intake (and around 1.5x as much as their protein). This is not Atkins / Keto lose all your glycogen and corresponding water territory. Looks to be roughly the same in the second study (with carb:pro ration at 1.5 or less).

I really don't know about the catabolization of LBM and energy yields. I have not seen 600 - 1500 kcals but that's because I really haven't seen anything other than what you linked to in part 1 of this thread.

I guess what I'm getting at is that sure, macro components affect what type of weight you lose - less so, I think than resistance activity does for LBM preservation, but sure, adequate protein assists in this - but it is not at all clear to me, based on empirical results that you've referenced or that I've seen elsewhere, that the thrust of what I took your argument to be is accurate -- that a focus on losing body fat and absolutely minimizing loss of LBM means overall weight loss will be slower / take longer. Maybe the 600 - 1500 kcals is wrong; maybe the human organism is so complex we're all missing something, but demonstrably it seems to me that the original premise is wrong.

And I won't prolong the semantic stuff, but I guess I will remain of the view that "a calorie is a calorie" while also maintaining a view that the proportion of macronutrients consumed, particularly while in a caloric deficit, affect body composition. And I will decidedly not adopt the view, at least not yet, espoused by the OP (both in this particular thread and in the numerous others she favors regarding added sugars, processed food, etc.). And I'll keep up with a high protein diet and progressive overload resistance training 'cause I think that offers up the best approach to achieve the goals I want to achieve.

I generally agree with you. I just think that body composition when losing weight is linked. When you're improving body comp and losing weight at the same time, you're trying to shift the proportion of weight loss to be more fat than muscle proportionately in reference to your body fat/LBM percentages. I think weight loss and the energy equation is fairly complex -- after all the body has thousands of metabolic reactions, and so many of them vary according to the individual. Sure, there are some broad generalizations that hold true for many people, but that doesn't equal simplicity per se. I think Lyle does a pretty good job of explaining it in his article on the energy equation, at least for those within the normal parameters of metabolism (i.e. no thyroid, insulin resistance, adrenal issues, etc. that can throw it off).

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

I also realize that those that don't have the stomach for all the details are interested in simple rules. So, focusing on calories only for such people is probably a good rule of thumb. But, that doesn't negate the actual complexity of the whole picture. And that's what I've been trying to get at more than anything.

There are other factors involved in weight loss (especially when wanting to specifically lose fat) than just a caloric deficit. How much will them impact that bedrock of a caloric deficit? Probably varies on the individual and likely won't be more than important than the caloric deficit, but just because something is less important doesn't mean that it's not important at all. And, depending on individual factors (carb sensitivity, particularly low NEAT, other metabolic issues, etc.), it may become much important in specific cases.

As for the slower weight loss when you're losing more fat vs muscle, that is just a logical extension of the mathematics. Perhaps I'm wrong on it and there are other factors that I'm not taking into account, but if the kcals released by fat vs muscle are 3500 vs 600-1500, I just don't see how that couldn't occur given the same caloric deficit.

In the studies, I imagine part of that picture is that those that maintain more LBM have a higher metabolism (or lose less of their metabolic burn) relative to the ones losing more LBM. That's one of the reasons you want to keep muscle as much as possible -- as it burns more than the same amount of fat. So, if your food intake is the same in the groups, their relative caloric/metabolic burn will change as they lose more weight (i.e. those with more LBM will have a higher caloric burn than those with less LBM). So, that may also be the reason behind the greater weight loss (other than just water issues) with the PRO groups --- with the same food intake and greater burn, their deficit actually grew as the study progressed relative to those who lost more LBM because their burn was lower (not grew relative to their initial deficits, but just in relation to the CHO/normal groups).

Now, I haven't read this, but this is another source that Lyle cites in his article about these issues; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19386028?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

tigersword

On the studies, the way I interpret them, is that there are two things going on: (1) weight loss and (2) LBM maintenance. The PRO groups lost more weight than the CHO groups while also maintaining more LBM (or in the first study's case, lost the same), so that means that the PRO groups actually lost a LOT more FAT than the CHO (or "normal") groups. I was trying to not couple these (maintain LBM and increased fat loss) as I thought it would muddy the waters because weight loss has a couple factors that affect the numbers on the scale -- (1) muscle loss, (2) fat loss and (3) water retention. People with more CHO in their diets, retain more water, correct? That's why you see a huge initial weight loss in ketogenic/carb restricted diets -- it's that loss of 5-7+ lbs of water, right? I wasn't sure if they accounted for that in their weight loss numbers or not, in either study, so that can skew the weight loss results whereas when measuring for LBM, that's always apples to apples. So, I was using the study to emphasize the maintenance of LBM in the PRO groups rather than discussing the weight/fat issue as it's not as straightforward. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but that's how I read it.

And I have seen several sources showing that the catabolization of 1 lb muscle releases 600-1500 kcals whereas 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals, and I don't think anyone is disputing that. So, if the PRO group also lost more or the same weight than the CHO.normal groups while maintaining a greater amount of LBM, they lost a LOT more lbs of fat (or possibly water). That tracks, right?

In the end, I was just trying to take an easy illustration to show that not all calories are created equal, especially as regards macros. So caloric deficit while important (and likely essential for weight loss) is not the only factor that determines (1) how much weight you lose and (2) what type of weight you lose (i.e. muscle vs fat). There are several other factors that affect that, including the type of food/calories you eat.

I didn't even want to get into the "clean" debate, as I think there is less research on it and the effects are likely less dramatic than macros differences. For me, I think it's possible that it tracks the idea of macros as well -- that "cleaner" food may result in greater weight loss/fat loss. The more nutrient dense food you eat, the less total calories you likely will need to eat to feel full, satiated and meet your nutrient requirements (essential fatty acids, essential amino acids, vitamins, minerals ,etc.). I've seen theories on that -- that too many modern diets have too much low nutrient food. So to get all the nutrients you need, your body will crave more of the food and people end of overeating (or just really hungry while on a diet -- and that's one reason why such a lifestyle is difficult to sustain longterm). Now, I haven't seen any study on that, just theories people have discussed. But, to me, that seems plausible and why you MAY benefit from focusing on nutrient dense food as opposed to food with low nutrient count (i.e. lots of empty calories) for (1) satiety and (2) essential nutrients, especially while in a caloric deficit. But, once again, I haven't seen any studies on that per se -- or don't remember any that were cited by people discussing the theory. If anyone knows of any, I'd love to read them.

Wait, you're not sure if they accounted for water weight, and you say that can affect the weight loss numbers, but measuring for LBM is a perfect comparison, even though water is a component of LBM. Water weight loss would show as a decrease in LBM. So how can you discount one number (weight loss) due to possible water weight fluctuation, but you don't discount the other number (LBM) due to the same water weight fluctuation? I believe that's called "cherry picking."

tigersword

I generally agree with you. I just think that body composition when losing weight is linked. When you're improving body comp and losing weight at the same time, you're trying to shift the proportion of weight loss to be more fat than muscle proportionately in reference to your body fat/LBM percentages. I think weight loss and the energy equation is fairly complex -- after all the body has thousands of metabolic reactions, and so many of them vary according to the individual. Sure, there are some broad generalizations that hold true for many people, but that doesn't equal simplicity per se. I think Lyle does a pretty good job of explaining it in his article on the energy equation, at least for those within the normal parameters of metabolism (i.e. no thyroid, insulin resistance, adrenal issues, etc. that can throw it off).

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

I also realize that those that don't have the stomach for all the details are interested in simple rules. So, focusing on calories only for such people is probably a good rule of thumb. But, that doesn't negate the actual complexity of the whole picture. And that's what I've been trying to get at more than anything.

There are other factors involved in weight loss (especially when wanting to specifically lose fat) than just a caloric deficit. How much will them impact that bedrock of a caloric deficit? Probably varies on the individual and likely won't be more than important than the caloric deficit, but just because something is less important doesn't mean that it's not important at all. And, depending on individual factors (carb sensitivity, particularly low NEAT, other metabolic issues, etc.), it may become much important in specific cases.

As for the slower weight loss when you're losing more fat vs muscle, that is just a logical extension of the mathematics. Perhaps I'm wrong on it and there are other factors that I'm not taking into account, but if the kcals released by fat vs muscle are 3500 vs 600-1500, I just don't see how that couldn't occur given the same caloric deficit.

In the studies, I imagine part of that picture is that those that maintain more LBM have a higher metabolism (or lose less of their metabolic burn) relative to the ones losing more LBM. That's one of the reasons you want to keep muscle as much as possible -- as it burns more than the same amount of fat. So, if your food intake is the same in the groups, their relative caloric/metabolic burn will change as they lose more weight (i.e. those with more LBM will have a higher caloric burn than those with less LBM). So, that may also be the reason behind the greater weight loss (other than just water issues) with the PRO groups --- with the same food intake and greater burn, their deficit actually grew as the study progressed relative to those who lost more LBM because their burn was lower (not grew relative to their initial deficits, but just in relation to the CHO/normal groups).

Now, I haven't read this, but this is another source that Lyle cites in his article about these issues; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19386028?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

There's a very easy way that couldn't occur, it's physically impossible. Weight loss is usually estimated at 75% fat, 25% lbm. That means that a 3500 calorie deficit would lead to about 1.25 pounds a week instead of 1 pound, if all numbers were exact. We all know numbers aren't exact, they are very rough estimates, which is why it fluctuates. Real world numbers it really doesn't make much difference at all.

lindsey1979

On the studies, the way I interpret them, is that there are two things going on: (1) weight loss and (2) LBM maintenance. The PRO groups lost more weight than the CHO groups while also maintaining more LBM (or in the first study's case, lost the same), so that means that the PRO groups actually lost a LOT more FAT than the CHO (or "normal") groups. I was trying to not couple these (maintain LBM and increased fat loss) as I thought it would muddy the waters because weight loss has a couple factors that affect the numbers on the scale -- (1) muscle loss, (2) fat loss and (3) water retention. People with more CHO in their diets, retain more water, correct? That's why you see a huge initial weight loss in ketogenic/carb restricted diets -- it's that loss of 5-7+ lbs of water, right? I wasn't sure if they accounted for that in their weight loss numbers or not, in either study, so that can skew the weight loss results whereas when measuring for LBM, that's always apples to apples. So, I was using the study to emphasize the maintenance of LBM in the PRO groups rather than discussing the weight/fat issue as it's not as straightforward. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but that's how I read it.

And I have seen several sources showing that the catabolization of 1 lb muscle releases 600-1500 kcals whereas 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals, and I don't think anyone is disputing that. So, if the PRO group also lost more or the same weight than the CHO.normal groups while maintaining a greater amount of LBM, they lost a LOT more lbs of fat (or possibly water). That tracks, right?

In the end, I was just trying to take an easy illustration to show that not all calories are created equal, especially as regards macros. So caloric deficit while important (and likely essential for weight loss) is not the only factor that determines (1) how much weight you lose and (2) what type of weight you lose (i.e. muscle vs fat). There are several other factors that affect that, including the type of food/calories you eat.

I didn't even want to get into the "clean" debate, as I think there is less research on it and the effects are likely less dramatic than macros differences. For me, I think it's possible that it tracks the idea of macros as well -- that "cleaner" food may result in greater weight loss/fat loss. The more nutrient dense food you eat, the less total calories you likely will need to eat to feel full, satiated and meet your nutrient requirements (essential fatty acids, essential amino acids, vitamins, minerals ,etc.). I've seen theories on that -- that too many modern diets have too much low nutrient food. So to get all the nutrients you need, your body will crave more of the food and people end of overeating (or just really hungry while on a diet -- and that's one reason why such a lifestyle is difficult to sustain longterm). Now, I haven't seen any study on that, just theories people have discussed. But, to me, that seems plausible and why you MAY benefit from focusing on nutrient dense food as opposed to food with low nutrient count (i.e. lots of empty calories) for (1) satiety and (2) essential nutrients, especially while in a caloric deficit. But, once again, I haven't seen any studies on that per se -- or don't remember any that were cited by people discussing the theory. If anyone knows of any, I'd love to read them.

Wait, you're not sure if they accounted for water weight, and you say that can affect the weight loss numbers, but measuring for LBM is a perfect comparison, even though water is a component of LBM. Water weight loss would show as a decrease in LBM. So how can you discount one number (weight loss) due to possible water weight fluctuation, but you don't discount the other number (LBM) due to the same water weight fluctuation? I believe that's called "cherry picking."

I'm just giving possibilities. I haven't read the study in detail for a while, and I'm not particularly interested in doing so now just to get the exact details right in explanation. Feel free to read the details for yourself and compare rather than rely on my memory or explanation.

In the end, either way you cut it, I think it shows that not all calories are the same. That higher protein diet affects weightloss and LBM -- that the higher protein groups lost either weight or presumably more fat and retain more LBM than their CHO/normal counterparts. And that was the thrust of my argument from the very beginning -- that not all calories are the same or result in the same weight loss for the same deficit. So looking at what you eat is important as well -- that it isn't just about how many total calories you consume.

Annie_01

What's the "quality" calorie that is going to help me lose weight faster? Just wondering

The one that you don't eat...or maybe it was the other one...