A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE

TX_Rhon

In for part 2 because...gifs...and everyone's educational resume.

I'm only here for the beer. Mmmm beer. :drinker:

Beer in a gif! You're welcome :drinker:

ndj1979

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.

Such a great response...

"I'm just making all of this up, so if you find that the evidence I'm posting doesn't actually support my claims, it doesn't matter. Just know that I'm right because appeal to authority."

I mean why would you want to actually take the time to make sure your argument is actually correct? It's WAY easier to just play the "I'm smart, so I'm right, guys!" card.

apparently superior IQ, degree, and institution graduate from trumps all facts and makes one never wrong.

DamePiglet

In for part 2 because...gifs...and everyone's educational resume.

I'm only here for the beer. Mmmm beer. :drinker:

Beer in a gif! You're welcome :drinker:

Thank you indeed. I believe I need one of those iBeer gadgets. Oh technology!
Cats may not have the most sophisticated palate, but they get it.

neandermagnon

what I want to know now is the price of that many big macs compared to the price of the amount of petrol to drive my car the same distance..........

neandermagnon

Ugh I fought it and fought it but since this bad boy is still going and has now evolved to a gif-fest I just can't proceed with my Sunday unless I contribute. I feel like sausage will make everything better (yes, I'm on a sausage kick this morning)

:laugh:

neandermagnon

This wasn't rolled in.

^^^^ this

because some threads just won't die and need gifs

and bonobos

Are you saying that this thread just needs to look at the flowers?

flowers? *confused* (sorry, I frequently don't get jokes or miss cultural references....)


I think this bonobo pic needs a caption

neandermagnon

This wasn't rolled in.

^^^^ this

because some threads just won't die and need gifs

and bonobos

Are you saying that this thread just needs to look at the flowers?

flowers? *confused*


I think this bonobo pic needs a caption

caption: she didn't!!! She didn't just pull the "I have a high IQ card"

DamePiglet

This wasn't rolled in.

^^^^ this

because some threads just won't die and need gifs

and bonobos

Are you saying that this thread just needs to look at the flowers?

flowers? *confused*


I think this bonobo pic needs a caption

caption: she didn't!!! She didn't just pull the "I have a high IQ card"

That's the look I had when I saw that sausage gif.

neandermagnon

This wasn't rolled in.

^^^^ this

because some threads just won't die and need gifs

and bonobos

Are you saying that this thread just needs to look at the flowers?

flowers? *confused*


I think this bonobo pic needs a caption

caption: she didn't!!! She didn't just pull the "I have a high IQ card"

That's the look I had when I saw that sausage gif.

yeah lol :laugh:

tigersword

what I want to know now is the price of that many big macs compared to the price of the amount of petrol to drive my car the same distance..........

A US Gallon of gasoline has about 31,000 kilocalories. So 217 Big Macs (550 kilocalories each) is equal to about 3.85 gallons (14.6 liters) of fuel. Using the Big Mac Index (yes, that's a thing, :laugh: ) the price of a Big Mac in the US averages $4.62. So, 217 Big Macs cost $1,002.54. 3.85 gallons of fuel cost $13.75 (average price of gasoline in the US is currently about $3.57 per gallon.)

How bored must I be to actually have done the math? :laugh:

EDIT - After pulling some more numbers from the internet, I did the math in pounds. 217 Big Macs = £605.43. 14.6 liters of petrol = £18.92.

QuietBloom

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.

jofjltncb6

This wasn't rolled in.

^^^^ this

because some threads just won't die and need gifs

and bonobos

Are you saying that this thread just needs to look at the flowers?

flowers? *confused* (sorry, I frequently don't get jokes or miss cultural references....)


I think this bonobo pic needs a caption

neandermagnon

what I want to know now is the price of that many big macs compared to the price of the amount of petrol to drive my car the same distance..........

A US Gallon of gasoline has about 31,000 kilocalories. So 217 Big Macs (550 kilocalories each) is equal to about 3.85 gallons (14.6 liters) of fuel. Using the Big Mac Index (yes, that's a thing, :laugh: ) the price of a Big Mac in the US averages $4.62. So, 217 Big Macs cost $1,002.54. 3.85 gallons of fuel cost $13.75 (average price of gasoline in the US is currently about $3.57 per gallon.)

How bored must I be to actually have done the math? :laugh:

EDIT - After pulling some more numbers from the internet, I did the math in pounds. 217 Big Macs = £605.43. 14.6 liters of petrol = £18.92.

I'm very very very very very impressed :drinker:

although I live in Bahrain so would require a 3rd set of calculations in Bahraini dinars :bigsmile:

a big mac is 1BD, and 1 litre of petrol is 100 fils (10 litres = 1 BD because aint no-one just getting 100 fils of petrol put in a car lol)

14.6 litres = 1.46BD

217 big macs = 217BD

:drinker: @ Bahrain for having the most easy currency to do this kind of maths with

Definitely ain't going to be feeding my car any big macs. And both petrol and bigmacs are clearly cheaper here.

Will_Thrust_For_Candy

This wasn't rolled in.

^^^^ this

because some threads just won't die and need gifs

and bonobos

Are you saying that this thread just needs to look at the flowers?

flowers? *confused*


I think this bonobo pic needs a caption

caption: she didn't!!! She didn't just pull the "I have a high IQ card"

That's the look I had when I saw that sausage gif.

yeah lol :laugh:

What? You guys didn't enjoy Jamie Oliver and his sexy sausage?

Tiernan1212

This wasn't rolled in.

^^^^ this

because some threads just won't die and need gifs

and bonobos

Are you saying that this thread just needs to look at the flowers?

flowers? *confused* (sorry, I frequently don't get jokes or miss cultural references....)


I think this bonobo pic needs a caption

Poor, poor Lizzie

FlaxMilk

A US Gallon of gasoline has about 31,000 kilocalories. So 217 Big Macs (550 kilocalories each) is equal to about 3.85 gallons (14.6 liters) of fuel. Using the Big Mac Index (yes, that's a thing, :laugh: ) the price of a Big Mac in the US averages $4.62. So, 217 Big Macs cost $1,002.54. 3.85 gallons of fuel cost $13.75 (average price of gasoline in the US is currently about $3.57 per gallon.)

How bored must I be to actually have done the math? :laugh:

EDIT - After pulling some more numbers from the internet, I did the math in pounds. 217 Big Macs = £605.43. 14.6 liters of petrol = £18.92.

That's a big Twinkie.

jenna808

Arguing on the internet is almost as big a waste of time as I spent reading this entire thread.
Facts, science, studies, logic, and personal experiences apparently are not valid points.
The Godzilla/broccoli gif made me spit some juice out.
And I only went to community college so if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go get a delicious burger from McD's that I'm now craving.

jofjltncb6

Arguing on the internet is almost as big a waste of time as I spent reading this entire thread.
Facts, science, studies, logic, and personal experiences apparently are not valid points.
The Godzilla/broccoli gif made me spit some juice out.
And I only went to community college so if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go get a delicious burger from McD's that I'm now craving.

IMHO, the purpose of arguing these points isn't to sway the loudest of the opposition; it's to sway those who may still have been undecided. I could count on one hand the number of times a vocal antagonist has changed their mind and admitted it in a MFP thread like this.

I suspect the number of times this particular antagonist has publicly admitted she was wrong (or even realized herself she was wrong) is an even smaller number.

ThickMcRunFast

Is this still going?


Ugh. Undergrads, man.

ndj1979

Arguing on the internet is almost as big a waste of time as I spent reading this entire thread.
Facts, science, studies, logic, and personal experiences apparently are not valid points.
The Godzilla/broccoli gif made me spit some juice out.
And I only went to community college so if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go get a delicious burger from McD's that I'm now craving.

IMHO, the purpose of arguing these points isn't to sway the loudest of the opposition; it's to sway those who may still have been undecided. I could count on one hand the number of times a vocal antagonist has changed their mind and admitted it in a MFP thread like this.

I suspect the number of times this particular antagonist has publicly admitted she was wrong (or even realized herself she was wrong) is an even smaller number.

i am guessing that number is zero point zero ..

I am also guessing she has never been wrong in her life ….

kjo9692

Arguing on the internet is almost as big a waste of time as I spent reading this entire thread.
Facts, science, studies, logic, and personal experiences apparently are not valid points.
The Godzilla/broccoli gif made me spit some juice out.
And I only went to community college so if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go get a delicious burger from McD's that I'm now craving.

IMHO, the purpose of arguing these points isn't to sway the loudest of the opposition; it's to sway those who may still have been undecided. I could count on one hand the number of times a vocal antagonist has changed their mind and admitted it in a MFP thread like this.

I suspect the number of times this particular antagonist has publicly admitted she was wrong (or even realized herself she was wrong) is an even smaller number.

i am guessing that number is zero point zero ..

I am also guessing she has never been wrong in her life ….

But...but... she can't be wrong!! she is one of the smartest people in the U.S.! Stephen Hawking's got nothing on her.

3laine75

A US Gallon of gasoline has about 31,000 kilocalories. So 217 Big Macs (550 kilocalories each) is equal to about 3.85 gallons (14.6 liters) of fuel. Using the Big Mac Index (yes, that's a thing, :laugh: ) the price of a Big Mac in the US averages $4.62. So, 217 Big Macs cost $1,002.54. 3.85 gallons of fuel cost $13.75 (average price of gasoline in the US is currently about $3.57 per gallon.)

How bored must I be to actually have done the math? :laugh:

EDIT - After pulling some more numbers from the internet, I did the math in pounds. 217 Big Macs = £605.43. 14.6 liters of petrol = £18.92.

That's a big Twinkie.

????

lindsey1979

Do you guys act like this in real life?

Because sometimes it feels like a schmarmy high school comedy in here -- I expect Lindsay Lohan or Seth Rogen to jump out with a clever one liner to bring some comic relief to all the inanity. If most of you are 15, I guess that would make sense. For those that are actually older than 25 or so, do you act like this in your real lives as well? People really keep gifs around to post on message boards?

Perhaps I'm just new to such an internet message board, but this place is both fascinating and mildly abhorrent at the same time.

kjo9692

Do you guys act like this in real life?

Because sometimes it feels like a schmarmy high school comedy in here -- I expect Lindsay Lohan or Seth Rogen to jump out with a clever one liner to bring some comic relief to all the inanity. If most of you are 15, I guess that would make sense. For those that are actually older than 25 or so, do you act like this in your real lives as well? People really keep gifs around to post on message boards?

Perhaps I'm just new to such an internet message board, but this place is both fascinating and mildly abhorrent at the same time.

This turned into a comedy when you brought the higher IQ card.

lindsey1979

Do you guys act like this in real life?

Because sometimes it feels like a schmarmy high school comedy in here -- I expect Lindsay Lohan or Seth Rogen to jump out with a clever one liner to bring some comic relief to all the inanity. If most of you are 15, I guess that would make sense. For those that are actually older than 25 or so, do you act like this in your real lives as well? People really keep gifs around to post on message boards?

Perhaps I'm just new to such an internet message board, but this place is both fascinating and mildly abhorrent at the same time.

This turned into a comedy when you brought the higher IQ card.

I expect that from the 21 year-olds, just more surprised to see it from the 30-60 crowd.

neandermagnon

Do you guys act like this in real life?

Because sometimes it feels like a schmarmy high school comedy in here -- I expect Lindsay Lohan or Seth Rogen to jump out with a clever one liner to bring some comic relief to all the inanity. If most of you are 15, I guess that would make sense. For those that are actually older than 25 or so, do you act like this in your real lives as well? People really keep gifs around to post on message boards?

Perhaps I'm just new to such an internet message board, but this place is both fascinating and mildly abhorrent at the same time.

yes I like to have fun and joke around in real life too, because it's fun and good for mental health.

lighten up and enjoy the gifs. They're funny.

kjo9692

Do you guys act like this in real life?

Because sometimes it feels like a schmarmy high school comedy in here -- I expect Lindsay Lohan or Seth Rogen to jump out with a clever one liner to bring some comic relief to all the inanity. If most of you are 15, I guess that would make sense. For those that are actually older than 25 or so, do you act like this in your real lives as well? People really keep gifs around to post on message boards?

Perhaps I'm just new to such an internet message board, but this place is both fascinating and mildly abhorrent at the same time.

This turned into a comedy when you brought the higher IQ card.

I expect that from the 21 year-olds, just more surprised to see it from the 30-60 crowd.

Regardless of the age group, which you are trying to suggest it has something to do with "maturity" I believe, everything you said after you tried to imply you were smarter than everyone else to prove your point, was a joke.

ndj1979

Do you guys act like this in real life?

Because sometimes it feels like a schmarmy high school comedy in here -- I expect Lindsay Lohan or Seth Rogen to jump out with a clever one liner to bring some comic relief to all the inanity. If most of you are 15, I guess that would make sense. For those that are actually older than 25 or so, do you act like this in your real lives as well? People really keep gifs around to post on message boards?

Perhaps I'm just new to such an internet message board, but this place is both fascinating and mildly abhorrent at the same time.

yes I like to have fun and joke around in real life too, because it's fun and good for mental health.

lighten up and enjoy the gifs. They're funny.

agree 100% ..

and yes, I am a clown/goof ball/wise *kitten* in real life …

if you take yourself too seriously, you never have any fun ...

ndj1979

Do you guys act like this in real life?

Because sometimes it feels like a schmarmy high school comedy in here -- I expect Lindsay Lohan or Seth Rogen to jump out with a clever one liner to bring some comic relief to all the inanity. If most of you are 15, I guess that would make sense. For those that are actually older than 25 or so, do you act like this in your real lives as well? People really keep gifs around to post on message boards?

Perhaps I'm just new to such an internet message board, but this place is both fascinating and mildly abhorrent at the same time.

bahahahahha this is amusing…you list how you are superior to everyone and then accuse the rest of us of "immaturity" …oh the irony!

neandermagnon