What will make you fatter...?

chevy88grl

you can't gain fat on a calorie surplus if you're doing tae bo.

bwhahahahaha. I just spit my water out.

HotBodUnderConstruction

Shouldn't the weight gain be the same? Whether it's a 1,000 calorie surplus in protein, fat, or carbs...it's still a surplus

chevy88grl

I've been told by doctors that you really shouldn't pay attention to the fat labels on the nutrition label. Carbs is a HUGE factor in weight gain. Hence the reason a lot of people try to go on a no carb diet. However that usually fails...your body still needs carbs. But my mother had to go by carbs due to diabetes issues...she lost over 100lbs. in less than a year from it...and healthily.

I eat nearly 250g of carbs in a day. I've done just fine with weight loss and kept it off for almost 2 years.

geoffjball

I didn't read all the earlier posts, so I apologize if this was already said, but I would think the carbs would make one fatter. Reason being, ingested fat != body fat. If I ate a bunch of fat, I would think my body would assume I will continue this, and would therefore release hormones to burn body fat. If I ate carbs (to a surplus, therefore I didn't burn them all), my hormones would say "turn those carbs into fat!"

I could be, and probably am, quite wrong in all this, as my background in nutrition is limited to Google, this forum, and my grade 10 teacher.

shaky115

WILL INSULIN MAKE ME GROW BALLS
Y [ ] N [ ]

Hahahahahahaha this made me laugh. To answer that question.....that would be a no. LOL

DopeItUp

The real answer is:

Beer will make me fatter.

TinkrBelz

Posting this before I read any other comments in case you answered.

I would say both would lead to weight gain since you are taking in an extra 1000 calories...BUT, I would say that the carbs would make you gain more. I am always over on my fat because of coconut oil, eggs, and almonds (do not look at diary today....I ate ice cream) And I am losing weight even though I am eating more fat than what I am suppose to eat.

I noticed that I lost weight when I dropped my carbs, still the same calories and fat, but less carbs.

So, I would say 1000 more calories and overkill of carbs will make you gain more than 1000 more calories and an overkill of fat.

Nikki_Marz

It won't matter...on the molecular level they are equivalent to one another. With carbs they are the prefered fuel because they are broken down quickly to be utilized, fats take longer to break down to use. However add to much of either and it still just gets bypassed and stored in the fat cells.
Time had a basic article on this very thing...

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1822118,00.html

askme12

Carbs.

PercivalHackworth

Oh yes o/

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