A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE

kjo9692

right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.

Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..

Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).

lindsey1979

right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.

Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..

Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).

Oh Lindsey... this was a bad choice.

Oh... eeee...

Perhaps, but I don't like the ganging up mentality either of "15 of us are saying your wrong" = you MUST be wrong. Just with calories, no everyone's intellectual capacity is equal.

or reading comprehension, as you keep pointing out. Please scroll back to my last post and answer the damn question.

What is the question?

trojan_bb

right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.

Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..

Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).

LOL. Ok, so do I and many others here. It's MUCH more likely that you are just wrong.

You have a BS in biology w/ honors huh?. Uh oh, we got ourselves a biology expert here! The automatic sign of a completely failed argument is an appeal to authority like that one.

Attack the argument. I've debunked everyone that's said otherwise.

And I just challenge the sheer numbers argument he made -- that fifteen people agree with him. I'll take the one with a biology degree (let alone from a top program) over the other ones that don't.

You don't debunk, you just move the goal posts.

How so? I feel that I've been very consistent throughout.

Maximum weight loss is not the same as optimizing body composition. You've been consistent in confusing the argument. No one is arguing that different protein levels don't affect body composition and muscle loss.

k8blujay2

Then we might as well say a mile is not a mile based on where you drive it...

auddii

right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.

Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..

Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).

I have a PhD in genetics. What exactly was your point here?

Cool. Can you follow the science behind not every calorie is the same? That what you choose to eat impacts you're weight loss as well as it affects whether you catabolize muscle vs fat? Are you with me on that?

I've seen 3500 thrown around for a pound of fat, and people take that as the gold standard (and what you've quoted as well), but I believe there have been some studies that have shown that isn't exactly true, and there has been a very wide range of estimations of how many calories it takes to build or lose a pound of muscle. There have also been studies that have shown that the ability to maintain muscle mass is far more dependent on muscle loading and activity levels. While the food you eat has some impact, it is greatly overshadowed by activity.

So yes, in theory you are partially right (and again, I'd need to check some studies for actual numbers), but in reality and actual people trying to lose weight; it may not matter as much as you say.

But, I'm assuming from how you've been arguing you're going to take that as a win.

tigersword

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.

:laugh:

I'm the one with the poor reading comprehension, sure. Hilarious, considering in the article I was commenting on, LYLE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANY SPECIFIC MACROS OR ANY SPECIFIC DIET. So if my reading comprehension is poor, what must yours be, since you're talking about things that aren't even in the article in question?

Wrong Lyle article -- my mistake. Here's his quote:

"For a couple of decades, there has been an ongoing argument regarding the issue of ‘is a calorie a calorie’ in terms of changes on body composition and other parameters. I discuss this topic in Is a Calorie a Calorie?
Fundamentally, my belief is that, given identical macro-nutrient intakes (in terms of protein, carbs, and fats) that there is going to be little difference in terms of bodily response to a given meal. There may be small differences mind you (and of course research supports that) but, overall, they are not large. And certainly not of the magnitude that many make it sound like"

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

So now you're linking an article that has absolutely nothing to do with weight loss? Also, that article was based on a study where the macros weren't identical, yet the hormonal responses were identical. That seems to go further toward disproving your argument, not proving it. Lyle is very much a proponent of "a calorie is a calorie." In fact, in the comments section he responds to a poster by stating flat out that, "it's the calories, not the quality."

auddii

Then we might as well say a mile is not a mile based on where you drive it...

My friends ran a 5k that was not a 5k. They were very disappointed in whoever planned the route...

lindsey1979

Maximum weight loss is not the same as optimizing body composition. You've been consistent in confusing the argument. No one is arguing that different protein levels don't affect body composition and muscle loss.

I totally agree with you. My whole argument from the very beginning is that what you eat matters as well as how much you eat, and that has different impacts on weight loss. That was all. I gave protein as an easy example and explained the differences between fat loss and muscle loss.

Some have argued that what you eat makes absolutely no difference whatsoever -- it's all about total calories and that's it. That caloric deficit alone will determine weight loss. That I vehemently disagree with.

kgeyser

right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.

Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..

Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).

Thanks for the laugh.

KnM0107

right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.

Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..

Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).

Bless your heart

stevencloser

Saying this again since she missed it the first time and didn't reply:

No one eats JUST one food, overall, really. That's OUR point . we all eat a combination of many foods, so there's no ONE impact on weight loss, which is why the main focus is the calorie deficit. Unless you're on Survivor, living on nothing but rice, you're going to eat a combination of many different things each day. Rather than calculate how many kcals each food source might impact you, you calculate the calories of each food source and have an overall calorie deficit. that's how it works. that deficit results in weight loss. When you maintain a deficit that results in a loss of 1-2 lbs per week, and follow a fitness plan, you keep your lean muscle while losing fat.

I just wouldn't make such assumptions about people as there is a wide variety of what people eat.

Many people after learning about the fact that a certain amount of protein helps minimize loss/maintain LBM in a caloric deficit specifically aim to eat at least that much. Those trying to build muscle eat even more.

Knowing these sorts of things helps people create a plan that works for them as no plan fits all.

The amount of protein needed to have only a small amount of muscles catabolized is pretty low. Something like 60 grams I think. In most diets that is easily met. And even if not, it just simply doesn't happen that only muscle gets catabolized and no fat. So you'll end up at the approximate pound per 3500 calories one way or another.

lindsey1979

Then we might as well say a mile is not a mile based on where you drive it...

It's still a mile, but if you're talking about how many calories you'll burn will traversing it, then several other factors become important -- the weight of the person, the rate of speed, the incline, etc. Those factors will impact how many calories are burned by the individual.

That's why a mile is a mile is limited in its helpfulness as regards weight loss or exercise burn. The same with a calorie is a calorie.

whitebalance

Bingo!

verymissk

IS THERE STILL A NO-SUGAR GROUP FOR THESE DISCUSSIONS??!?

lindsey1979

I've seen 3500 thrown around for a pound of fat, and people take that as the gold standard (and what you've quoted as well), but I believe there have been some studies that have shown that isn't exactly true, and there has been a very wide range of estimations of how many calories it takes to build or lose a pound of muscle. There have also been studies that have shown that the ability to maintain muscle mass is far more dependent on muscle loading and activity levels. While the food you eat has some impact, it is greatly overshadowed by activity.

So yes, in theory you are partially right (and again, I'd need to check some studies for actual numbers), but in reality and actual people trying to lose weight; it may not matter as much as you say.

But, I'm assuming from how you've been arguing you're going to take that as a win.

Yep, taking it as a win. I'm not arguing how much it will impact as that's going to vary a lot depending on a multitude of factors. Merely, that is does have an impact. Some have said that there is no impact, and that's what I've been trying to debunk with the explanations and variety of examples.

I_Will_End_You

Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).

Hold the phones, kids, we have a smart one here! We should all just stop posting and take her word as gospel, because we just don't have the mental capability to understand.

k8blujay2

Then we might as well say a mile is not a mile based on where you drive it...

My friends ran a 5k that was not a 5k. They were very disappointed in whoever planned the route...

So that's how it works... One just says it something (or in this case it's not) and it just is.

Annie_01

right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.

Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..

Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).

My son falls in to that same category.

My reason for telling you this...

Sometimes he can't see the forest for the trees (or is that the trees for the forest?). He is so brilliant that at times...he can't see the things that are simple. In his mind...he looks for the complicated...at times he has trouble communicating his thoughts in a way that others can understand.

I have always told him...he is not a special snowflake...in the real world things don't always work as he thinks they should...and that he has trouble some times coming in out of the rain.

The other thing that I taught him...never make someone else feel less than simply because he is in that top 1%.

lindsey1979

Wrong Lyle article -- my mistake. Here's his quote:

"For a couple of decades, there has been an ongoing argument regarding the issue of ‘is a calorie a calorie’ in terms of changes on body composition and other parameters. I discuss this topic in Is a Calorie a Calorie?
Fundamentally, my belief is that, given identical macro-nutrient intakes (in terms of protein, carbs, and fats) that there is going to be little difference in terms of bodily response to a given meal. There may be small differences mind you (and of course research supports that) but, overall, they are not large. And certainly not of the magnitude that many make it sound like"

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

So now you're linking an article that has absolutely nothing to do with weight loss? Also, that article was based on a study where the macros weren't identical, yet the hormonal responses were identical. That seems to go further toward disproviong your argument, not proving it. Lyle is very much a proponent of "a calorie is a calorie." In fact, in the comments section he responds to a poster by stating flat out that, "it's the calories, not the quality."

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that characterization.

From how I read Lyle, he seems to say that a calorie of protein is a calorie of protein, a calorie of fat is a calorie of fat and a calorie of carbs is a calorie of carbs. To me, that's very different than saying a calorie is a calorie.

stevencloser

Maximum weight loss is not the same as optimizing body composition. You've been consistent in confusing the argument. No one is arguing that different protein levels don't affect body composition and muscle loss.

I totally agree with you. My whole argument from the very beginning is that what you eat matters as well as how much you eat, and that has different impacts on weight loss. That was all. I gave protein as an easy example and explained the differences between fat loss and muscle loss.

Some have argued that what you eat makes absolutely no difference whatsoever -- it's all about total calories and that's it. That caloric deficit alone will determine weight loss. That I vehemently disagree with.

We're just trying to argue that to have any noticable difference from the amount of weight loss, you'd have to have a completely unrealistic diet. 100% carbs, no fat, no protein or something like that. And even then your body would still catabolize a mix of muscle and body fat.