A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE

Charlottesometimes23

Was this study based on self-reported nutrient intake? Or was a strict diet regime followed?

There was a published response to it at http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/3/535.long with some criticism of the methodology.

The article itself states "Despite the intensive behavioral counseling in our study, macronutrient targets were not fully met, which complicated the interpretation of our null result. We aimed to test a contrast in protein energy of 10% but achieved only an ∼3% contrast, which our trial was not powered to detect."

Actually by 2 years only fat was significantly different I believe, and participants had also gained 40% of the weight lost with no differences between the groups. There were contrasts at 6 months though (although only minimal for protein) with no difference in weight lost or body composition. Six months is a long time for these types of studies.

Charlottesometimes23

Look what else I found...

IS A CALORIE A CALORIE? http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full

"Conclusion: We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.

In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."

ndj1979

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

apparently you have to have an iq of 10,00 or greater to contribute to this thread….

In that case, I would like to amend my previous post and instead state that I was just retested and scored a 10,01...

...so still in.

lol whoops 10,000

neandermagnon

This wasn't rolled in.

^^^^ this

because some threads just won't die and need gifs

and bonobos

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?

mccindy72

Will_Thrust_For_Candy

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)

yarwell

Actually by 2 years only fat was significantly different I believe, and participants had also gained 40% of the weight lost with no differences between the groups. There were contrasts at 6 months though (although only minimal for protein) with no difference in weight lost or body composition. Six months is a long time for these types of studies.

Six months is indeed a long time. The way they handle the dropouts in the numbers can make a big difference too. If the thing was underpowered you have to look past the "not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level" type statements to see what differences did exist and what chance they were accidental.

I was a bit worried that all the subjects had the same RQ when it was supposed to be trialling different macros too.

Jestinia

*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.

Right you are! And some foods also don't give up all their calories during digestion. Some nuts, for example. Meanwhile highly processed foods (yum mac & cheese) are easy to digest, meaning less energy expenditure during digestion and full absorption. Maybe that little difference doesn't matter when you have a lot of weight to lose, but it sure adds up when you are trying to maintain or shed only a few more pounds.

Then there is the issue of packaged processed foods that aren't really properly measured for portion. Servings can be wildly inaccurate, meaning you can be getting a lot more calories than you think you are. It's a good idea to weigh and measure even packaged foods to make sure you're not getting extra.

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."

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.

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.