A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE
Replies
-
sigh.
"Skinny fat" happens when people are in too aggressive a calorie deficit, not from "bad" calories. People whose muscles atrophy from lack of use get "skinny fat". People who starve themselves and their bodies use too much muscle as fuel get "skinny fat".
Partly true. It happens when people lose too much muscle in a caloric deficit, usually because they're too focused on the numbers on the scale. There are different reasons that happens. And it is affected by the type of calories you eat, as well as the quantity.
No, it's not. Which is entirely why every doctor will tell you to keep weight loss to 1-2 lbs per week, to avoid muscle loss. It doesn't matter the food source, just the calorie deficit.
If that's true, then why has a certain amount of protein intake been shown to minimize LBM loss in subjects with isocaloric diets (i.e. same deficit)?
Here are some the studies if you'd like to read for yourself: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17299116 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16046715
It's also the reason why people choose a recovery drink after lifting heavy to have a 1:4 ratio of protein:easily digested carbs -- the carbs replenish glycogen stores and protein provides the amino acids to build/repair muscle tissue so the body can best focus on building/repairing muscle damage from lifting heavy. By doing this, they get the most benefit out of lifting heavy. Lifting heavy has also shown to help with this -- minimizing LBM loss in a caloric deficit.
You're simply wrong on this.0 -
once again you feel to realize that original OP was that Quality trumps Quantity ...
there was no other discussion of macros in the OP ....did you even read it?
Again, you get an A+ for thread derailment.
I didn't read it that way. The title of the thread is "A Calorie is Not a Calorie" and then she said:This is not something that some people don't like to hear and we are hearing it again and again. For the large percentage of people who do like to hear it, here it is from HARVARD HEALTH.
LESS ABOUT QUANTITY... more about quality.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/best-diet-quality-counts/
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity
You interpret that whole "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY... more about quality." as trumping. I don't. I read the study and it was showing that quality matters also --- once again, not an either/or scenario, but a both/and.
But people like you are just as guilty of the OP of taking a certain premise and then using it as proof for a further extrapolation, which doesn't hold up. Some said the type of calories (i.e quality) doesn't matter -- that it's only about quantity. And that's what I've been challenging. Exactly, on point.
Yes I read the study too and it doesn't say the quality of the calories matters for weight loss and from that study•Researchers did not discount the importance of calories, instead suggesting that choosing high-quality foods (and decreasing consumption of lower-quality foods) is an important factor in helping individuals consume fewer calories
which basically means yes "good" food has less calories but again it's about quantity isn't it..0 -
sigh.
"Skinny fat" happens when people are in too aggressive a calorie deficit, not from "bad" calories. People whose muscles atrophy from lack of use get "skinny fat". People who starve themselves and their bodies use too much muscle as fuel get "skinny fat".
Partly true. It happens when people lose too much muscle in a caloric deficit, usually because they're too focused on the numbers on the scale. There are different reasons that happens. And it is affected by the type of calories you eat, as well as the quantity.
No, it's not. Which is entirely why every doctor will tell you to keep weight loss to 1-2 lbs per week, to avoid muscle loss. It doesn't matter the food source, just the calorie deficit.
If that's true, then why has a certain amount of protein intake been shown to minimize LBM loss in subjects with isocaloric diets (i.e. same deficit)? You're simply wrong on this.
Lifting heavy has also shown to help with this -- minimizing LBM loss in a caloric deficit.
Again, I'll say: I find it quite interesting that you are pointing out how we are all wrong although we have pictures of our own current progress and status; and are giving out information on our own eating habits and what worked for us; and I've seen and read no proof of your own argument. It's rather futile to argue against us without offering any return debate.0 -
once again you feel to realize that original OP was that Quality trumps Quantity ...
there was no other discussion of macros in the OP ....did you even read it?
Again, you get an A+ for thread derailment.
I didn't read it that way. The title of the thread is "A Calorie is Not a Calorie" and then she said:This is not something that some people don't like to hear and we are hearing it again and again. For the large percentage of people who do like to hear it, here it is from HARVARD HEALTH.
LESS ABOUT QUANTITY... more about quality.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/best-diet-quality-counts/
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity
You interpret that whole "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY... more about quality." as trumping. I don't. I read the study and it was showing that quality matters also --- once again, not an either/or scenario, but a both/and.
But people like you are just as guilty of the OP of taking a certain premise and then using it as proof for a further extrapolation, which doesn't hold up. Some said the type of calories (i.e quality) doesn't matter -- that it's only about quantity. And that's what I've been challenging. Exactly, on point.
A+ for derailment
F- for comprehension of thread topic.
the title of the post is a "calorie is not a calorie" and then she goes on to say quality is more important then quantity.
so by this argument I can eat 1000 quality calories over maintenance and I will not gain a pound right? Because quality matters over quantity..right, right, right?0 -
once again you feel to realize that original OP was that Quality trumps Quantity ...
there was no other discussion of macros in the OP ....did you even read it?
Again, you get an A+ for thread derailment.
I didn't read it that way. The title of the thread is "A Calorie is Not a Calorie" and then she said:This is not something that some people don't like to hear and we are hearing it again and again. For the large percentage of people who do like to hear it, here it is from HARVARD HEALTH.
LESS ABOUT QUANTITY... more about quality.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/best-diet-quality-counts/
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity
You interpret that whole "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY... more about quality." as trumping. I don't. I read the study and it was showing that quality matters also --- once again, not an either/or scenario, but a both/and.
But people like you are just as guilty of the OP of taking a certain premise and then using it as proof for a further extrapolation, which doesn't hold up. Some said the type of calories (i.e quality) doesn't matter -- that it's only about quantity. And that's what I've been challenging. Exactly, on point.
Yes I read the study too and it doesn't say the quality of the calories matters for weight loss and from that study•Researchers did not discount the importance of calories, instead suggesting that choosing high-quality foods (and decreasing consumption of lower-quality foods) is an important factor in helping individuals consume fewer calories
which basically means yes "good" food has less calories but again it's about quantity isn't it..
Yes, they're saying that quantity matters too -- just as I've been saying. But the vast majority of the article also talks about how quality is important -- from that atkins dieters, the high protein and low glycemic carbs, etc. It backs the premise again and again that the quality of what you're eating is important too.0 -
Yes, they're saying that quantity matters too -- just as I've been saying. But the vast majority of the article also talks about how quality is important -- from that atkins dieters, the high protein and low glycemic carbs, etc. It backs the premise again and again that the quality of what you're eating is important too.
for health not weight loss.
now wth is that chocolate covered cantelope..I am gonna go lift heavy things and need a snack for after...0 -
once again you feel to realize that original OP was that Quality trumps Quantity ...
there was no other discussion of macros in the OP ....did you even read it?
Again, you get an A+ for thread derailment.
I didn't read it that way. The title of the thread is "A Calorie is Not a Calorie" and then she said:This is not something that some people don't like to hear and we are hearing it again and again. For the large percentage of people who do like to hear it, here it is from HARVARD HEALTH.
LESS ABOUT QUANTITY... more about quality.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/best-diet-quality-counts/
Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity
You interpret that whole "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY... more about quality." as trumping. I don't. I read the study and it was showing that quality matters also --- once again, not an either/or scenario, but a both/and.
But people like you are just as guilty of the OP of taking a certain premise and then using it as proof for a further extrapolation, which doesn't hold up. Some said the type of calories (i.e quality) doesn't matter -- that it's only about quantity. And that's what I've been challenging. Exactly, on point.
Yes I read the study too and it doesn't say the quality of the calories matters for weight loss and from that study•Researchers did not discount the importance of calories, instead suggesting that choosing high-quality foods (and decreasing consumption of lower-quality foods) is an important factor in helping individuals consume fewer calories
which basically means yes "good" food has less calories but again it's about quantity isn't it..
Yes, they're saying that quantity matters too -- just as I've been saying. But the vast majority of the article also talks about how quality is important -- from that atkins dieters, the high protein and low glycemic carbs, etc. It backs the premise again and again that the quality of what you're eating is important too.
F- for reiterating your own points over and over again and avoiding the questions you don't want to answer.0 -
Again, I'll say: I find it quite interesting that you are pointing out how we are all wrong although we have pictures of our own current progress and status; and are giving out information on our own eating habits and what worked for us; and I've seen and read no proof of your own argument. It's rather futile to argue against us without offering any return debate.
You are all wrong on this specific premise.
I'm not saying that what you're ultimately doing doesn't produce results (for some) or that the entire strategy is fatally flawed. On the contrary, looking at certain macros (as I've been advocating specifically in protein) and maintaining a certain deficit can be a good strategy for some, perhaps even many (but certainly not all). I'm merely pointing out to the extent your strategy relies on the premise that all calories are the same and deficit is the ONLY thing that matters in weight loss, it's a flawed premise. Broken clocks are right twice a day too.0 -
As a note all the diets referenced in this article Atkins, zone, Ornish you do not counted calories....so to say that the quality of the calories is what makes you lose weight is ambiguous at best...
Because they weren't measuring all the factors involved...0 -
Again, I'll say: I find it quite interesting that you are pointing out how we are all wrong although we have pictures of our own current progress and status; and are giving out information on our own eating habits and what worked for us; and I've seen and read no proof of your own argument. It's rather futile to argue against us without offering any return debate.
You are all wrong on this specific premise.
I'm not saying that what you're ultimately doing doesn't produce results (for some) or that the entire strategy is fatally flawed. On the contrary, looking at certain macros (as I've been advocating specifically in protein) and maintaining a certain deficit can be a good strategy for some, perhaps even many (but certainly not all). I'm merely pointing out to the extent your strategy relies on the premise that all calories are the same and deficit is the ONLY thing that matters in weight loss, it's a flawed premise. Broken clocks are right twice a day too.
so I can eat in a calorie deficit and gain weight???? Really? Explain that one...0 -
A+ for derailment
F- for comprehension of thread topic.
the title of the post is a "calorie is not a calorie" and then she goes on to say quality is more important then quantity.
so by this argument I can eat 1000 quality calories over maintenance and I will not gain a pound right? Because quality matters over quantity..right, right, right?
You have a really hard time with reading comprehension. The thread is titled as such, she provides a study that supports that and then draws that conclusion that quality is more important.
I agree with the first two and disagree with the last. I don't believe that her conclusion is correct or an accurate representation of the article's conclusion.
However, both she and the article are correct in the original premise -- that quality of calories is also important to weight loss. You keep trying to twist things to support your arguments. But they're incorrect.0 -
Again, I'll say: I find it quite interesting that you are pointing out how we are all wrong although we have pictures of our own current progress and status; and are giving out information on our own eating habits and what worked for us; and I've seen and read no proof of your own argument. It's rather futile to argue against us without offering any return debate.
You are all wrong on this specific premise.
I'm not saying that what you're ultimately doing doesn't produce results (for some) or that the entire strategy is fatally flawed. On the contrary, looking at certain macros (as I've been advocating specifically in protein) and maintaining a certain deficit can be a good strategy for some, perhaps even many (but certainly not all). I'm merely pointing out to the extent your strategy relies on the premise that all calories are the same and deficit is the ONLY thing that matters in weight loss, it's a flawed premise. Broken clocks are right twice a day too.
and you know that a calorie deficet isn't what causes weight loss in all how???? Every "diet" out there regardless of if they count calories or not relies on the fact that their chosen scheme will put you in a deficet, why because they cut out higher calorie options that they say are "bad"0 -
Yes, they're saying that quantity matters too -- just as I've been saying. But the vast majority of the article also talks about how quality is important -- from that atkins dieters, the high protein and low glycemic carbs, etc. It backs the premise again and again that the quality of what you're eating is important too.
for health not weight loss.
now wth is that chocolate covered cantelope..I am gonna go lift heavy things and need a snack for after...
Wrong. Health impacts weight loss. How much weight you lose is DIRECTLY affected by what sort of tissue you're catabolizing -- whether it's muscle or fat. The more muscle you catabolize, the greater your weight loss will be. The more fat you catabolize, the less weight you'll lose.
Once again, you'll lose weight in both scenarios. But, if you want to maximize your efforts, you want to focus on fat loss, not weight loss generally as you want to retain as much muscle as possible.
Do you want to work hard? Or work both hard and smart? If it's the latter, then you want to focus on quality as well as quantity to maximize your efforts. Period.0 -
As a note all the diets referenced in this article Atkins, zone, Ornish you do not counted calories....so to say that the quality of the calories is what makes you lose weight is ambiguous at best...
Because they weren't measuring all the factors involved...
In that article, perhaps. But you know very well, Steph, that there are other studies out there showing that -- just like the ones I quoted above about protein.0 -
Maybe I can help.
I think that what nearly everyone here is trying to get across, is that weight loss happens in an calorie deficit.
The reason that people started going in is because she said it is the phrase "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY". All that matters in weight loss when it comes to calories, is quantity. That's it.
Then you came in talking about how calories are acutally used in the body. This is a different topic. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, because honestly, I don't know enough about that to argue that point. But I, along with the rest of us here, know that for weight loss, only quantity matters. And from her oringinal statement, OP was talking about weight loss. If she wasn't, then she didn't specify. Or if she did, idk cause that was like 47 pages ago
That's all.0 -
Yes, they're saying that quantity matters too -- just as I've been saying. But the vast majority of the article also talks about how quality is important -- from that atkins dieters, the high protein and low glycemic carbs, etc. It backs the premise again and again that the quality of what you're eating is important too.
F- for reiterating your own points over and over again and avoiding the questions you don't want to answer.
What is the question then? I thought I answered it, but you think I haven't.0 -
You are all wrong on this specific premise.
I'm not saying that what you're ultimately doing doesn't produce results (for some) or that the entire strategy is fatally flawed. On the contrary, looking at certain macros (as I've been advocating specifically in protein) and maintaining a certain deficit can be a good strategy for some, perhaps even many (but certainly not all). I'm merely pointing out to the extent your strategy relies on the premise that all calories are the same and deficit is the ONLY thing that matters in weight loss, it's a flawed premise. Broken clocks are right twice a day too.
so I can eat in a calorie deficit and gain weight???? Really? Explain that one...
Totally missing the point AGAIN.
No, you'll lose in both scenarios. But if you eat certain things, you'll maximize the same deficit and will result in greater fat loss (though less weight loss as muscle loss results in greater weight loss).0 -
If a calorie is not a calorie, then what is it? :P0
-
Here's my thing...
QUALITY of food... meaning "nutrient density"... yes. Very important for good health.
QUALITY of a calorie? That means nothing to me.0 -
Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.
Our body needs quality food.0 -
I have to applaud you though, whether or not you're right or wrong. You actually sound pretty level headed while stating your claims. Most people would have resulted to insults and rage quit by now lol.
ETA this was directed at lindsay1975. Not the individual above me LOL0 -
Again, I'll say: I find it quite interesting that you are pointing out how we are all wrong although we have pictures of our own current progress and status; and are giving out information on our own eating habits and what worked for us; and I've seen and read no proof of your own argument. It's rather futile to argue against us without offering any return debate.
You are all wrong on this specific premise.
I'm not saying that what you're ultimately doing doesn't produce results (for some) or that the entire strategy is fatally flawed. On the contrary, looking at certain macros (as I've been advocating specifically in protein) and maintaining a certain deficit can be a good strategy for some, perhaps even many (but certainly not all). I'm merely pointing out to the extent your strategy relies on the premise that all calories are the same and deficit is the ONLY thing that matters in weight loss, it's a flawed premise. Broken clocks are right twice a day too.
and you know that a calorie deficet isn't what causes weight loss in all how???? Every "diet" out there regardless of if they count calories or not relies on the fact that their chosen scheme will put you in a deficet, why because they cut out higher calorie options that they say are "bad"
Once again, I'm not saying that a calorie deficit isn't important. It is. But so the quality of the calories you consume to achieve that deficit. Two separate premises, both of which are important and impact fat and weight loss.0 -
Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.
Our body needs quality food.
In for more confusion about basics0 -
Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.
Our body needs quality food.
after ten pages that is all you got, really?
so cow meat vs cow meat is not cow meat????0 -
Yes, they're saying that quantity matters too -- just as I've been saying. But the vast majority of the article also talks about how quality is important -- from that atkins dieters, the high protein and low glycemic carbs, etc. It backs the premise again and again that the quality of what you're eating is important too.
for health not weight loss.
now wth is that chocolate covered cantelope..I am gonna go lift heavy things and need a snack for after...
Wrong. Health impacts weight loss. How much weight you lose is DIRECTLY affected by what sort of tissue you're catabolizing -- whether it's muscle or fat. The more muscle you catabolize, the greater your weight loss will be. The more fat you catabolize, the less weight you'll lose.
Once again, you'll lose weight in both scenarios. But, if you want to maximize your efforts, you want to focus on fat loss, not weight loss generally as you want to retain as much muscle as possible.
Do you want to work hard? Or work both hard and smart? If it's the latter, then you want to focus on quality as well as quantity to maximize your efforts. Period.
Again this is about weight loss not the quality of the weight loss.
You can go around in this circle as many times as you want and yet prove nothing becaue you have nothing to back up what you are saying.
Yes we (most here who eat 80/20) agree it is best to watch macros to ensure we don't lose muscle...etc.
But we also agree if you want to lose weight(jsut that number on the scale nothing more nothing less) it is about quantity of calories and you have nothing concrete to suggest otherwise except your daunting need to be right.
Nothing to back up what you are saying...even the harvard article doesn't say it because it references studies of non calorie counting diets so that is mute in your argument.
And to be frank I don't care what you believe, there are too many of us that know better..and prove it day after day after day and "recruit" others to our side and feed them cookies :devil: and icecream sandwiches made with poptarts...and AMG they lose weight...because they are in a calorie deficet.
Oh And just because you think it doesn't make it so...
Science and cold hard facts are not on your side.
*flips hair, does a duck face and watches for the argument to flow forth*
Right fighters...have to be right...even when in the end they are wrong and look totally well...silly.0 -
Again, I'll say: I find it quite interesting that you are pointing out how we are all wrong although we have pictures of our own current progress and status; and are giving out information on our own eating habits and what worked for us; and I've seen and read no proof of your own argument. It's rather futile to argue against us without offering any return debate.
You are all wrong on this specific premise.
I'm not saying that what you're ultimately doing doesn't produce results (for some) or that the entire strategy is fatally flawed. On the contrary, looking at certain macros (as I've been advocating specifically in protein) and maintaining a certain deficit can be a good strategy for some, perhaps even many (but certainly not all). I'm merely pointing out to the extent your strategy relies on the premise that all calories are the same and deficit is the ONLY thing that matters in weight loss, it's a flawed premise. Broken clocks are right twice a day too.
and you know that a calorie deficet isn't what causes weight loss in all how???? Every "diet" out there regardless of if they count calories or not relies on the fact that their chosen scheme will put you in a deficet, why because they cut out higher calorie options that they say are "bad"
Once again, I'm not saying that a calorie deficit isn't important. It is. But so the quality of the calories you consume to achieve that deficit. Two separate premises, both of which are important and impact fat and weight loss.
and the original post was about nothing that you have been going on an on about ..
it was about Quality trumping Quantity ...0 -
Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.
Our body needs quality food.
after ten pages that is all you got, really?
so cow meat vs cow meat is not cow meat????
:laugh:0 -
If a calorie is not a calorie, then what is it? :P
it's a cookie0 -
you mean this:Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.
Our body needs quality food.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html0 -
Maybe I can help.
I think that what nearly everyone here is trying to get across, is that weight loss happens in an calorie deficit.
The reason that people started going in is because she said it is the phrase "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY". All that matters in weight loss when it comes to calories, is quantity. That's it.
Then you came in talking about how calories are acutally used in the body. This is a different topic. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, because honestly, I don't know enough about that to argue that point. But I, along with the rest of us here, know that for weight loss, only quantity matters. And from her oringinal statement, OP was talking about weight loss. If she wasn't, then she didn't specify. Or if she did, idk cause that was like 47 pages ago
That's all.
I appreciate that, but it's not true. A deficit is necessary for weight loss -- yes -- I'm in total agreement with you there. But how you create that deficit (i.e which calories you consume) will impact how much weight you actually lose.
For example (again):
--- 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. So, if you are able to catabolize only fat and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 1 lb.
--- 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals (I've seen various numbers). If you only catabolize muscle and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 2.3-5.8 lbs.
The good news is that no one loses 100%, unless something is very medically wrong. So, most lose some percentage of fat and some percentage of muscle. Ideally, you want to maximize fat loss and minimize muscle loss. Eating a certain amount of protein and lifting heavy will help you do this is in a caloric deficit.
So, in conclusion, what you eat to create that deficit most certainly impacts your amount and type weight loss (although you will lose weight in a deficit regardless -- just how much of fat vs. muscle and how much total weight will be vary based on what you eat).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions