What will make you fatter...?

taylorblues

bump.............interested............want to read later...........great subject!!

aboadle

Like Razique said:

carbs uses 23% of it's energy to convert to body fat. Leaving 770 cals of fat (85 gms)
fat uses 3% of it's energy to convert to body fat. Leaving 970 cals of fat (107 gms)

So, (by my shoddy calculations and referring to my physiology text book), you would gain more by eating the 1000 cals of fat. 22 grams more.

androde

I'd say carbs.

AmerTunsi

My answer is that there would be absolutely no difference if you were to eat exactly 1,000 calories of fat vs 1,000 calories of carbs.

Calories are calories no matter what type are consumed. Obviously the nutritional value of these calories can be discussed. And yes there may be some topics up for debate about how these calories will lead to other side effects like insulin spike leading to cravings and eating more or even bodily fluids being retained.

But the bottom line is a 1,000 calories is a 1,000 calories.

That is my final answer.

anner45

30 day shred??

grinch031

I don't get why you seem to ignore all the biochem mechanisms and put all your eggs in the "studies show" basket. Look there are not enough studies to prove one way or the other exactly what causes obesity or how strong each of the many factors are, etc. It is too complicated and there are almost always confounding variables in the way.

I could post Guyenet articles about why things like leptin matter and he does back up various points with studies, but you continue to ignore them because they don't meet your CICO model where you seem to think that because there is no metabolic advantage to fat or carbs, that nothing else seems to matter.

We don't live in metabolic wards, so we can't say with certainty everyone will lose equal weight in a natural environment when they choose between fat or carbs.

2April

Since you already posted the answer to this study, I wanted to highlight this article which explains why a low-carb diet can have a metabolic advantage. I thought it was an interesting read.

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics"
Abstract
The principle of "a calorie is a calorie," that weight change in hypocaloric diets is independent of macronutrient composition, is widely held in the popular and technical literature, and is frequently justified by appeal to the laws of thermodynamics. We review here some aspects of thermodynamics that bear on weight loss and the effect of macronutrient composition. The focus is the so-called metabolic advantage in low-carbohydrate diets – greater weight loss compared to isocaloric diets of different composition. Two laws of thermodynamics are relevant to the systems considered in nutrition and, whereas the first law is a conservation (of energy) law, the second is a dissipation law: something (negative entropy) is lost and therefore balance is not to be expected in diet interventions. Here, we propose that a misunderstanding of the second law accounts for the controversy about the role of macronutrient effect on weight loss and we review some aspects of elementary thermodynamics. We use data in the literature to show that thermogenesis is sufficient to predict metabolic advantage. Whereas homeostasis ensures balance under many conditions, as a general principle, "a calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/?tool=pubmed

Acg67

Since you already posted the answer to this study, I wanted to highlight this article which explains why a low-carb diet can have a metabolic advantage. I thought it was an interesting read.

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics"
Abstract
The principle of "a calorie is a calorie," that weight change in hypocaloric diets is independent of macronutrient composition, is widely held in the popular and technical literature, and is frequently justified by appeal to the laws of thermodynamics. We review here some aspects of thermodynamics that bear on weight loss and the effect of macronutrient composition. The focus is the so-called metabolic advantage in low-carbohydrate diets – greater weight loss compared to isocaloric diets of different composition. Two laws of thermodynamics are relevant to the systems considered in nutrition and, whereas the first law is a conservation (of energy) law, the second is a dissipation law: something (negative entropy) is lost and therefore balance is not to be expected in diet interventions. Here, we propose that a misunderstanding of the second law accounts for the controversy about the role of macronutrient effect on weight loss and we review some aspects of elementary thermodynamics. We use data in the literature to show that thermogenesis is sufficient to predict metabolic advantage. Whereas homeostasis ensures balance under many conditions, as a general principle, "a calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/?tool=pubmed

I take that is the study by Fineman?

Acg67

I don't get why you seem to ignore all the biochem mechanisms and put all your eggs in the "studies show" basket. Look there are not enough studies to prove one way or the other exactly what causes obesity or how strong each of the many factors are, etc. It is too complicated and there are almost always confounding variables in the way.

I could post Guyenet articles about why things like leptin matter and he does back up various points with studies, but you continue to ignore them because they don't meet your CICO model where you seem to think that because there is no metabolic advantage to fat or carbs, that nothing else seems to matter.

We don't live in metabolic wards, so we can't say with certainty everyone will lose equal weight in a natural environment when they choose between fat or carbs.

I'm unsure of what you're talking about, as this was talking about overfeeding, not dieting. And you are correct in ad lib studies comparing low carb/keto diets to other diets about 50% do show a so called metabolic advantage. But hold protein constant and even less show a metabolic advantage. If there was some sort of advantage in ad lib settings, why wouldn't it appear in the vast majorities of studies?

2April

Since you already posted the answer to this study, I wanted to highlight this article which explains why a low-carb diet can have a metabolic advantage. I thought it was an interesting read.

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics"
Abstract
The principle of "a calorie is a calorie," that weight change in hypocaloric diets is independent of macronutrient composition, is widely held in the popular and technical literature, and is frequently justified by appeal to the laws of thermodynamics. We review here some aspects of thermodynamics that bear on weight loss and the effect of macronutrient composition. The focus is the so-called metabolic advantage in low-carbohydrate diets – greater weight loss compared to isocaloric diets of different composition. Two laws of thermodynamics are relevant to the systems considered in nutrition and, whereas the first law is a conservation (of energy) law, the second is a dissipation law: something (negative entropy) is lost and therefore balance is not to be expected in diet interventions. Here, we propose that a misunderstanding of the second law accounts for the controversy about the role of macronutrient effect on weight loss and we review some aspects of elementary thermodynamics. We use data in the literature to show that thermogenesis is sufficient to predict metabolic advantage. Whereas homeostasis ensures balance under many conditions, as a general principle, "a calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/?tool=pubmed

I take that is the study by Fineman?

Yes

pupcamper

I think the body may behave differently than people think because of the low protein! I don't think anyone has commented on the fact that you can lose weight on a high carb/low protein diet, just as you can on a high protein/low carb diet! The body does what it has to and isn't care about what a study says (and I am not slamming anyone but there are lots of studies under lots of different conditions producing lots of different results)!

grinch031

I don't get why you seem to ignore all the biochem mechanisms and put all your eggs in the "studies show" basket. Look there are not enough studies to prove one way or the other exactly what causes obesity or how strong each of the many factors are, etc. It is too complicated and there are almost always confounding variables in the way.

I could post Guyenet articles about why things like leptin matter and he does back up various points with studies, but you continue to ignore them because they don't meet your CICO model where you seem to think that because there is no metabolic advantage to fat or carbs, that nothing else seems to matter.

We don't live in metabolic wards, so we can't say with certainty everyone will lose equal weight in a natural environment when they choose between fat or carbs.

I'm unsure of what you're talking about, as this was talking about overfeeding, not dieting. And you are correct in ad lib studies comparing low carb/keto diets to other diets about 50% do show a so called metabolic advantage. But hold protein constant and even less show a metabolic advantage. If there was some sort of advantage in ad lib settings, why wouldn't it appear in the vast majorities of studies?

I think this is all a red herring. It doesn't matter if low carb diets lead to faster weight loss or not. What matters is that body fat mass is regulated and and low carb diets are known to effectively lower set points, by allowing the dieter to eat instinctively at a lower calorie level without being excessively hungry. This is what matters.

LorinaLynn

The excess carbs would turn me into a hyperactive cross between the Tasmanian Devil and Cornholio... and I'd end up going on a seven mile run then turbo-cleaning my house... so I'd probably end up losing weight. :laugh:

Acg67

Since you already posted the answer to this study, I wanted to highlight this article which explains why a low-carb diet can have a metabolic advantage. I thought it was an interesting read.

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics"
Abstract
The principle of "a calorie is a calorie," that weight change in hypocaloric diets is independent of macronutrient composition, is widely held in the popular and technical literature, and is frequently justified by appeal to the laws of thermodynamics. We review here some aspects of thermodynamics that bear on weight loss and the effect of macronutrient composition. The focus is the so-called metabolic advantage in low-carbohydrate diets – greater weight loss compared to isocaloric diets of different composition. Two laws of thermodynamics are relevant to the systems considered in nutrition and, whereas the first law is a conservation (of energy) law, the second is a dissipation law: something (negative entropy) is lost and therefore balance is not to be expected in diet interventions. Here, we propose that a misunderstanding of the second law accounts for the controversy about the role of macronutrient effect on weight loss and we review some aspects of elementary thermodynamics. We use data in the literature to show that thermogenesis is sufficient to predict metabolic advantage. Whereas homeostasis ensures balance under many conditions, as a general principle, "a calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/?tool=pubmed

I take that is the study by Fineman?

Yes

This is a good post on that paper

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2010/12/metabolic-advantage-obesity-and-eric.html

Acg67

I don't get why you seem to ignore all the biochem mechanisms and put all your eggs in the "studies show" basket. Look there are not enough studies to prove one way or the other exactly what causes obesity or how strong each of the many factors are, etc. It is too complicated and there are almost always confounding variables in the way.

I could post Guyenet articles about why things like leptin matter and he does back up various points with studies, but you continue to ignore them because they don't meet your CICO model where you seem to think that because there is no metabolic advantage to fat or carbs, that nothing else seems to matter.

We don't live in metabolic wards, so we can't say with certainty everyone will lose equal weight in a natural environment when they choose between fat or carbs.

I'm unsure of what you're talking about, as this was talking about overfeeding, not dieting. And you are correct in ad lib studies comparing low carb/keto diets to other diets about 50% do show a so called metabolic advantage. But hold protein constant and even less show a metabolic advantage. If there was some sort of advantage in ad lib settings, why wouldn't it appear in the vast majorities of studies?

I think this is all a red herring. It doesn't matter if low carb diets lead to faster weight loss or not. What matters is that body fat mass is regulated and and low carb diets are known to effectively lower set points, by allowing the dieter to eat instinctively at a lower calorie level without being excessively hungry. This is what matters.

I'm still unsure why you're talking about weight loss in a thread talking about overfeeding and fat gain

And you are making the assumption that the leptin set point theory is true and it's not the low carbs or the higher fat, it's the higher protein that is satiating.

hpsnickers1

It depends on who you are; how active you are; how much metabolic damage is in your body; your genetics and your parents genetics; the quality of the food you eating.

the question cannot be answered because there really is no correct answer. It depends entirely on the individual.

delilah47

I guess if you eat 1000 calories, you eat 1000 calories. I don't think it matters.

Changed my mind:

But, if you were eating less than 20g of carbs a day, you would lose weight if you ate the 1000 additional calories of just fat. Been there, done that. Dr Adkins

I'm not sure you understood the original question, you'd be eating in a surplus. So even if you were consuming 20g of carbs a day, do you still think you'd lose weight consuming 1,000 cals over your maintenance requirement

Yes, it's the premise of Dr Adkins' diet. As long as you keep your carbs to less than 20g, you can eat thousands and thousands of calories of meat and fat and you will still lose weight. I did it years ago and lost 30 pounds in about 6 weeks. Your body needs sugar (carbs) to metabolize protein and fat, so your body does not recognize the protein and fat as useable nutrition and ignores it. Now, if you eat more than 20 grams of carbs a day, you would be in big trouble. You would gain weight very rapidly. You must, diligently, account for every single carb that you consume.

Acg67

I guess if you eat 1000 calories, you eat 1000 calories. I don't think it matters.

Changed my mind:

But, if you were eating less than 20g of carbs a day, you would lose weight if you ate the 1000 additional calories of just fat. Been there, done that. Dr Adkins

I'm not sure you understood the original question, you'd be eating in a surplus. So even if you were consuming 20g of carbs a day, do you still think you'd lose weight consuming 1,000 cals over your maintenance requirement

Yes, it's the premise of Dr Adkins' diet. As long as you keep your carbs to less than 20g, you can eat thousands and thousands of calories of meat and fat and you will still lose weight. I did it years ago and lost 30 pounds in about 6 weeks. Your body needs sugar (carbs) to metabolize protein and fat, so your body does not recognize the protein and fat as useable nutrition and ignores it. Now, if you eat more than 20 grams of carbs a day, you would be in big trouble. You would gain weight very rapidly. You must, diligently, account for every single carb that you consume.

Oh my...

grinch031

I don't get why you seem to ignore all the biochem mechanisms and put all your eggs in the "studies show" basket. Look there are not enough studies to prove one way or the other exactly what causes obesity or how strong each of the many factors are, etc. It is too complicated and there are almost always confounding variables in the way.

I could post Guyenet articles about why things like leptin matter and he does back up various points with studies, but you continue to ignore them because they don't meet your CICO model where you seem to think that because there is no metabolic advantage to fat or carbs, that nothing else seems to matter.

We don't live in metabolic wards, so we can't say with certainty everyone will lose equal weight in a natural environment when they choose between fat or carbs.

I'm unsure of what you're talking about, as this was talking about overfeeding, not dieting. And you are correct in ad lib studies comparing low carb/keto diets to other diets about 50% do show a so called metabolic advantage. But hold protein constant and even less show a metabolic advantage. If there was some sort of advantage in ad lib settings, why wouldn't it appear in the vast majorities of studies?

I think this is all a red herring. It doesn't matter if low carb diets lead to faster weight loss or not. What matters is that body fat mass is regulated and and low carb diets are known to effectively lower set points, by allowing the dieter to eat instinctively at a lower calorie level without being excessively hungry. This is what matters.

I'm still unsure why you're talking about weight loss in a thread talking about overfeeding and fat gain

And you are making the assumption that the leptin set point theory is true and it's not the low carbs or the higher fat, it's the higher protein that is satiating.

You're right, but I think you're trying to mislead people into believing things that aren't really that important in the grand scheme of things.

Anyways do you have any studies that answer the question you posed to the MFP crowd?

I don't believe that protein being satiating is really that important. I think body fat mass regulation is ultimately what determines our fate. I think leptin is the critical hormone post-weight loss. I think insulin is the critical hormone in making us fat to begin with. Both are important and provide a redundant feedback system to determine whether we eat more, eat less, burn more, burn less. And of course both are influenced by our environment and especially by the food we eat.

grinch031

I guess if you eat 1000 calories, you eat 1000 calories. I don't think it matters.

Changed my mind:

But, if you were eating less than 20g of carbs a day, you would lose weight if you ate the 1000 additional calories of just fat. Been there, done that. Dr Adkins

I'm not sure you understood the original question, you'd be eating in a surplus. So even if you were consuming 20g of carbs a day, do you still think you'd lose weight consuming 1,000 cals over your maintenance requirement

Yes, it's the premise of Dr Adkins' diet. As long as you keep your carbs to less than 20g, you can eat thousands and thousands of calories of meat and fat and you will still lose weight. I did it years ago and lost 30 pounds in about 6 weeks. Your body needs sugar (carbs) to metabolize protein and fat, so your body does not recognize the protein and fat as useable nutrition and ignores it. Now, if you eat more than 20 grams of carbs a day, you would be in big trouble. You would gain weight very rapidly. You must, diligently, account for every single carb that you consume.

Oh my...

That poster does not speak for everyone.

2April

Since you already posted the answer to this study, I wanted to highlight this article which explains why a low-carb diet can have a metabolic advantage. I thought it was an interesting read.

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics"
Abstract
The principle of "a calorie is a calorie," that weight change in hypocaloric diets is independent of macronutrient composition, is widely held in the popular and technical literature, and is frequently justified by appeal to the laws of thermodynamics. We review here some aspects of thermodynamics that bear on weight loss and the effect of macronutrient composition. The focus is the so-called metabolic advantage in low-carbohydrate diets – greater weight loss compared to isocaloric diets of different composition. Two laws of thermodynamics are relevant to the systems considered in nutrition and, whereas the first law is a conservation (of energy) law, the second is a dissipation law: something (negative entropy) is lost and therefore balance is not to be expected in diet interventions. Here, we propose that a misunderstanding of the second law accounts for the controversy about the role of macronutrient effect on weight loss and we review some aspects of elementary thermodynamics. We use data in the literature to show that thermogenesis is sufficient to predict metabolic advantage. Whereas homeostasis ensures balance under many conditions, as a general principle, "a calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/?tool=pubmed

I take that is the study by Fineman?

Yes

This is a good post on that paper

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2010/12/metabolic-advantage-obesity-and-eric.html

Thanks
I am not a biochemist so these arguments are a little over my head. However, I find when academics fight the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. They make a name for themselves by having an extreme point of view. However, everything can not be evaluated in black and white, there are many grey areas in life.

Acg67

I'm still unsure why you're talking about weight loss in a thread talking about overfeeding and fat gain

And you are making the assumption that the leptin set point theory is true and it's not the low carbs or the higher fat, it's the higher protein that is satiating.

You're right, but I think you're trying to mislead people into believing things that aren't really that important in the grand scheme of things.

Anyways do you have any studies that answer the question you posed to the MFP crowd?

I don't believe that protein being satiating is really that important. I think body fat mass regulation is ultimately what determines our fate. I think leptin is the critical hormone post-weight loss. I think insulin is the critical hormone in making us fat to begin with. Both are important and provide a redundant feedback system to determine whether we eat more, eat less, burn more, burn less. And of course both are influenced by our environment and especially by the food we eat.

Third page

So you talk about satiety being a huge factor in favor of low carb diets, but now you say that protein being more satiating isn't important?

That is one of the theories du jour on weight regain, about leptin levels. As for insulin would you then recommend a very low pro and cho diet, that was mostly fat, to minimize insulin spikes?

grinch031

I'm still unsure why you're talking about weight loss in a thread talking about overfeeding and fat gain

And you are making the assumption that the leptin set point theory is true and it's not the low carbs or the higher fat, it's the higher protein that is satiating.

You're right, but I think you're trying to mislead people into believing things that aren't really that important in the grand scheme of things.

Anyways do you have any studies that answer the question you posed to the MFP crowd?

I don't believe that protein being satiating is really that important. I think body fat mass regulation is ultimately what determines our fate. I think leptin is the critical hormone post-weight loss. I think insulin is the critical hormone in making us fat to begin with. Both are important and provide a redundant feedback system to determine whether we eat more, eat less, burn more, burn less. And of course both are influenced by our environment and especially by the food we eat.

Third page

So you talk about satiety being a huge factor in favor of low carb diets, but now you say that protein being more satiating isn't important?

That is one of the theories du jour on weight regain, about leptin levels. As for insulin would you then recommend a very low pro and cho diet, that was mostly fat, to minimize insulin spikes?

When you look at a 24-hour period, I don't think protein being satiating is the reason people on low-carb might consume less calories overall. I think protein being satiating is a way to keep people from consuming too much energy in a short period of time, which would lead to hormonal response that would induce further eating (based on a pre-existing disorder in fat accumulation). For instance, my hypothesis is that carb foods cause my fasting insulin to elevate even hours after I'm done eating, which then causes more hunger. Protein doesn't have that same effect, so my insulin drops back to a normal level hours after I eat. One possible reason for this is that in a given meal, I get full faster eating high protein over high carbs.

Another key point is on a low-carb diet that it doesn't seem to matter how many meals I eat or how large each meal is, in the end my body determines whether my fat is below or above a set point, and causes me to either 1) want to exercise really bad or 2) want to eat more.

grinch031

Acg, how many TOTAL grams of carbs were eaten when overfeeding was fat verses overfeeding was carbs?

Everyone take a look at Appendix A. Do you see any diet low in carbohydrates listed?

Acg, please provide an overfeeding study where carbohydrate intake is very low.

Acg67

Acg, how many TOTAL grams of carbs were eaten when overfeeding was fat verses overfeeding was carbs?

Using a rough calculation of kJ to kcals it looks like the baseline diet had around 250g of carbs, overfeeding on carbs added roughly an additional 347-436g of cho

Acg67

Acg, how many TOTAL grams of carbs were eaten when overfeeding was fat verses overfeeding was carbs?

Everyone take a look at Appendix A. Do you see any diet low in carbohydrates listed?

Acg, please provide an overfeeding study where carbohydrate intake is very low.

This wasn't dealing with low carb vs anything else, it was the fate of certain macronutrients while overfeeding

Chood5

I guess if you eat 1000 calories, you eat 1000 calories. I don't think it matters.

Changed my mind:

But, if you were eating less than 20g of carbs a day, you would lose weight if you ate the 1000 additional calories of just fat. Been there, done that. Dr Adkins

I'm not sure you understood the original question, you'd be eating in a surplus. So even if you were consuming 20g of carbs a day, do you still think you'd lose weight consuming 1,000 cals over your maintenance requirement

Yes, it's the premise of Dr Adkins' diet. As long as you keep your carbs to less than 20g, you can eat thousands and thousands of calories of meat and fat and you will still lose weight. I did it years ago and lost 30 pounds in about 6 weeks. Your body needs sugar (carbs) to metabolize protein and fat, so your body does not recognize the protein and fat as useable nutrition and ignores it. Now, if you eat more than 20 grams of carbs a day, you would be in big trouble. You would gain weight very rapidly. You must, diligently, account for every single carb that you consume.

Oh my........ Its Dr. Atkins. Not Adkins..

Why do you say our body needs sugar to metabolize protein and fat?

How does ones body ignore protein and fat?

If I eat more than 20 carbs a day I'm doing to gain weight very rapidly?

I think you need to do a little more research on the Atkins diet and nutrition in general before you start giving advice.

neanderthin

Acg, how many TOTAL grams of carbs were eaten when overfeeding was fat verses overfeeding was carbs?

Everyone take a look at Appendix A. Do you see any diet low in carbohydrates listed?

Acg, please provide an overfeeding study where carbohydrate intake is very low.

When protein is held constant TEF will favor carbs considering fat has almost a 0 effect on digestion, so basically some increase in carbs might actually have an effect on the energy used for digesting them.

grinch031

Acg, how many TOTAL grams of carbs were eaten when overfeeding was fat verses overfeeding was carbs?

Everyone take a look at Appendix A. Do you see any diet low in carbohydrates listed?

Acg, please provide an overfeeding study where carbohydrate intake is very low.

This wasn't dealing with low carb vs anything else, it was the fate of certain macronutrients while overfeeding

Exactly. Why does the first 250g of carbs not matter? That is a moderate-to-high carb diet. We all know that high carb + high fat is about the worst thing you can do to yourself. That is really what makes McDonalds so evil.

grinch031

Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.