A calorie is a calorie, but not always the same.
Replies
-
A calorie is the same as any other calorie in the sense that a calorie is just a unit of energy. It sounds like the OP is suggesting that the problem is that our bodies may not be finely calibrated bomb calorimeters.0
-
Just FYI, I wasn't talking about you in particular. There is just a heavy trend towards mystical thinking on these boards that gets in the way of people's progress.I never said it was all about carbs. I said the body processes stuff differently. It's funny enough that bb.com and am.com used to be filled with the arrogant people that killed the boards but more and more they've found their ways to these boards. It's funny when you go to bb.com and am.com to get away from people who have very little reading comprehension and think that the main post was all about go low carb or how someone things their body defies the laws of physics. God forbid someone may have an intolerance that is causing inflammation or something. You want to make something simple that there can be other factors. Glad you are someone who can have things simple, it doesn't work for everyone.
Well back to the bro scientist on am.com at least they are funny when they to shoot something down.
Thought experiment: Bob is eating at a 500 calorie daily deficit. He has been doing so for 3 months, and has not lost a single pound, even though he should have lost over 10! Which is more likely:
1) Bob processes food differently than other people, and has entered starvation mode, where his body needs less food than a normal human's to survive.
2) Bob is counting his calories wrong, and has actually been eating at his TDEE for the last 3 months.
Many people here seem to lean towards #1. I personally think #2 is more likely.
I just want to help people achieve their fitness goals. Believing in magical thinking doesn't do that.
Edit: too many quotes
Okay I can get that. I'm not saying my body is magical, and I wasn't trying to imply that. It was more of change things up if it's not working and find out works for you. Sorry for getting bent of out shape, must be the lack of carbs ;-)
I can get what you are getting at. I was at a point where I was weighing all my food down to .0 oz and using a polar hrm80 to help figure this out and even eating less trying to figure this out. This post was more of a try to find what works for you.
Another factor we have is this here site just guesses at your BMR which could be off.0 -
Thanks for this post! While I know this, I need the reminder every now and then to get my eating back in line. Today was the day I really need to refocus! Thanks again!0
-
[/quote]
You probably have what they call a protein bodytype, meaning you need less carbs but more protein to lose weight. I am the same and when I stick to that simple rule, providing I stay within my daily calorie allowance, the weight comes off.
Some people are suited to more carbs and less protein.
Good thread!
[/quote]
Yeah, I'm suited to more carbs and less protein. It's great (I love carbs), though I don't go crazy.0 -
That definitely seems feasible, although you won't gain any friends here by suggesting that a large caloric deficit is more effective for weight loss. Personally, having done CR for years, your body WILL adapt to any slow changes in diet.To add to that..
Numerous scientific studies show that small caloric changes have almost no long-term effect on weight. When we skip a cookie or exercise a little more, the body’s biological and behavioral adaptations kick in, significantly reducing the caloric benefits of our effort… As a recent commentary in The Journal of the American Medical Association noted, the “small changes” theory fails to take the body’s adaptive mechanisms into account.0 -
That definitely seems feasible, although you won't gain any friends here by suggesting that a large caloric deficit is more effective for weight loss. Personally, having done CR for years, your body WILL adapt to any slow changes in diet.To add to that..
Numerous scientific studies show that small caloric changes have almost no long-term effect on weight. When we skip a cookie or exercise a little more, the body’s biological and behavioral adaptations kick in, significantly reducing the caloric benefits of our effort… As a recent commentary in The Journal of the American Medical Association noted, the “small changes” theory fails to take the body’s adaptive mechanisms into account.
Correct, I was just gearing more towards while a calorie is a calorie and it's calorie in vs calorie out at the base our bodies aren't standard even daily on what that calorie out is. Like I was trying to say it's all about finding what works for you. It's tough to do sometimes. When I first started man those pounds melted off, then about 70 pounds down my body really started to adjust and has made it a struggle. I just want back to college days at this point!0 -
Well said!!! EXCELLENT ADVICE!!!0
-
Yeah, the BMR calculation here is not very precise. The best way to do it IMO is to get your body fat % if you can, calculate BMR based on that, use a conservative activity multiplier (I think too many people use 1.5+ when they should be using 1.375), add a deficit to support whatever weight loss/gain you are targeting, and put that into the custom goals settings. If you can't get your body fat, use one of the other formulas.Okay I can get that. I'm not saying my body is magical, and I wasn't trying to imply that. It was more of change things up if it's not working and find out works for you. Sorry for getting bent of out shape, must be the lack of carbs ;-)
I can get what you are getting at. I was at a point where I was weighing all my food down to .0 oz and using a polar hrm80 to help figure this out and even eating less trying to figure this out. This post was more of a try to find what works for you.
Another factor we have is this here site just guesses at your BMR which could be off.
Body fat formula for BMR is (in case anyone needs it):
BMR (men and women) = 370 + (21.6 X lean mass in kg)0 -
you are all unique little snowflakes
You usually have such valuable input to add, even if I don't always agree, but things like this...they make you seem like a real jerk.
Really?? I thought is was funny, in a Walter Mathau kind of cynical way.0 -
Yeah, the BMR calculation here is not very precise. The best way to do it IMO is to get your body fat % if you can, calculate BMR based on that, use a conservative activity multiplier (I think too many people use 1.5+ when they should be using 1.375), add a deficit to support whatever weight loss/gain you are targeting, and put that into the custom goals settings. If you can't get your body fat, use one of the other formulas.Okay I can get that. I'm not saying my body is magical, and I wasn't trying to imply that. It was more of change things up if it's not working and find out works for you. Sorry for getting bent of out shape, must be the lack of carbs ;-)
I can get what you are getting at. I was at a point where I was weighing all my food down to .0 oz and using a polar hrm80 to help figure this out and even eating less trying to figure this out. This post was more of a try to find what works for you.
Another factor we have is this here site just guesses at your BMR which could be off.
Body fat formula for BMR is (in case anyone needs it):
BMR (men and women) = 370 + (21.6 X lean mass in kg)
You know what that makes more sense for the BMR. I like that equation.0 -
You probably have what they call a protein bodytype, meaning you need less carbs but more protein to lose weight.
While I have seen evidence of low-fat and high-fat phenotypes, I don't think I have ever seen anything particularly convincing for someone being a protein type. Studies have shown almost double (1.5g/kg) the RDA intake of protein is excellent in terms of body composition. This is pretty much true for most people. Some studies (rare ones, mind you, and ones that don't necessarily hold a lot of weight) have shown improvements up to 3.0g/kg but, again, most people are getting these benefits, so I don't think it's necessarily being a "type" (namely protein).0 -
Nice though provoking thread. I guess the point is we are all different and each one of us has to find what works best for us. So we are all a little like snowflakes! I liked the snowflake comment, it cracked me up!0
-
-
Would of been valuable but even this line goes with what I was saying.. from your article: "The research, however, is very clear: not everybody has it as easy as some folks do. Some people’s bodies are, in fact, demonstrably more resistant to weight loss (or gain) than others. Not that they can’t lose (or gain) weight but it comes off or on more slowly. More accurately, their bodies fight back harder."0 -
I'm a big fan of self experimentation with nutrition and exercise and definitely think that people should mix up their macros a bit to see what works for them.
I still think cals in vs out is what matters most for weight loss/gain but you also have to take into account things like energy, mood, gym performance. That is where the self experimentation can really help IMO.0 -
Would of been valuable but even this line goes with what I was saying.. from your article: "The research, however, is very clear: not everybody has it as easy as some folks do. Some people’s bodies are, in fact, demonstrably more resistant to weight loss (or gain) than others. Not that they can’t lose (or gain) weight but it comes off or on more slowly. More accurately, their bodies fight back harder."
For this thread, an even more relevant article from the same author would be:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html
To quote a part of his summary:So is a calorie a calorie? Yes and no. Based on the data, my general feeling is this:
A sufficient protein intake will always beat out an insufficient protein intake, no matter what you do. Since all of the diets described in this book are based around sufficient protein, this is a non-issue.
Assuming caloric intake can be controlled (and protein is adequate of course), shuffling of carbs and fats tends to have a minor, approaching negligble effect.
There might be exceptions at the extremes (folks going to single digit bodyfat or extreme obesity) but that doesn’t apply to the majority of folks.
Lyle has a unique way of cutting through the BS.0 -
Thanks for posting!! I am in the process of figuring out where I need to be:)0
-
How Can I figure out my body type?0
-
Good Thread!
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie- it is the measure of how much energy is stored in a particular item. That is 100% percent true. It's also a gross oversimplification of the hormone and enzyme soup going on in out bodies. I do not believe that anyone has a "protein body type" being as how we are all humans and 99.999999% (i don't actually know how many 9's that should go to) the same. BUT people have different hormonal responses to food and it behaves differently in different bodies. Look for example at insulin and diabetics- no sane person would advise feeding a diabetic pixy stix vs. a chicken breast and spinach salad for the same calorie amount.
Personally, it is my opinion that most people that are overweight or obese need to start somewhere, and any diet/healthy eating plan that you can tolerate (or even like!) is going to be a good jumping off point. Sticking with any diet is going to be a huge step forward. Then, every person's diet is going to eventually need tweaking, and the goals are always 1)moving toward your goal and 2) feeling better. I love the people on here that have posted "I can't lose weight unless my carbs are under XXX or my protein is above YYY" Because everyone had to figure out those set points themselves, empirically. There is no magical number that works for one person that universally applies to others. I wish diet book authors would stop pretending there was. A program like MFP is WONDERFUL for aiding people in figuring out those trends!
Now, about carbohydrates. I think Glycemic Index should be everyone's #1 tool for carbohydrates. But what I rarely see mentioned about carbs is how F***ing easy they are to overeat! Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me can fill in the gap, but I don't think carbs trigger the hormonal "full" feeling, so you can keep munching and munching without a thought about it, even though you're way beyond how many calories of a fatty or protein rich food would give you. For me, that is the true danger of carbohydrates. But I love them anyway....So now I weigh/measure bread and rice etc. and make sure to only eat what I have planned.
Knowledge is power.0 -
L-mills: you experiment.
MoreBean13: re GI maybe not so much
http://www.alanaragon.com/elements-challenging-the-validity-of-the-glycemic-index.html
Some sorts of carbs are very easy to overeat but I can tell you I REALLY struggle to put down more than about 150g of oats at a time
0 -
"protein body type"
To reiterate, I have not seen evidence of a protein type but only a low-fat and high-fat phenotype. Almost all people who increase protein on a caloric deficit have shown far superior body composition than their lower counterparts. Increasing protein regardless will improve body composition assuming it's low to begin with. Just because you did better by increasing protein does not mean you're a protein type. It just fortifies the idea that protein becomes more important on a deficit, especially for leaner individuals.0 -
Chrisdavey: I actually agree with everything presented in that article, but I don't think there is a better measure available than the GI for determining whether a food is a "good" choice (low GI) or poor choice (high GI). Certainly I agree with some examples of foods that break the ranks, such as carrots, potatoes and watermelon. I think it would be really hard to wreck your diet with watermelon or carrots and potatoes- if they're measured and properly fit are probably OK. (I'm biased about potatoes- I've been a vegetarian for 20 yrs and the first year or maybe 2 all I ate was potatoes because they're all I knew how to cook myself- so now I think since I don't like them anymore nobody should...)
I don't think the GI is perfect, but to someone who is trying to learn how to healthfully incorporate carbohydrates in to their diet I think it is the best measure available.
I also agree about oats- but they're in the low-GI "good carb" range. I guess what I really meant was like white bread and pretzels and popcorn and sugary (low fat) foods like gummy bears or something. And there are limits to that too- If you've ever carb-loaded for an event (1/2 marathons in my case) you'll know that there comes a point where you feel about ripe to explode from JUST carbs.0 -
I am enjoying this post and all of the back and forth! I am glad you posted it, great stuff to think about. The last couple of posts spoke about how easy it is to over-consume carbs - yes, it is! Sorry if you're not a believer in this one- but I have been going for acupuncture treatment for a few things (hot flashes, sciatica, depression) and was recently treated for "cravings". I mentioned that when I start on carbs I can really go overboard. I have had two treatments and have really noticed a difference. Just saying. It is helping me and I've had more success in the past two weeks than the past two years.0
-
The protein stuff isn't magical either. Protein has a 30+% TEF, so it's really around 3 usable calories per gram. If you go from 50g protein a day to 200g protein per day and maintain the same nominal calorie intake, you have created a 150 calorie deficit in terms of usable calories relative to your previous diet.
For reference, TEF on carbs is 10% or less. Fat is basically 0%.
This is the real reason behind things people often explain with voodoo.0 -
Chrisdavey: I actually agree with everything presented in that article, but I don't think there is a better measure available than the GI for determining whether a food is a "good" choice (low GI) or poor choice (high GI). Certainly I agree with some examples of foods that break the ranks, such as carrots, potatoes and watermelon. I think it would be really hard to wreck your diet with watermelon or carrots and potatoes- if they're measured and properly fit are probably OK. (I'm biased about potatoes- I've been a vegetarian for 20 yrs and the first year or maybe 2 all I ate was potatoes because they're all I knew how to cook myself- so now I think since I don't like them anymore nobody should...)
I don't think the GI is perfect, but to someone who is trying to learn how to healthfully incorporate carbohydrates in to their diet I think it is the best measure available.
I also agree about oats- but they're in the low-GI "good carb" range. I guess what I really meant was like white bread and pretzels and popcorn and sugary (low fat) foods like gummy bears or something. And there are limits to that too- If you've ever carb-loaded for an event (1/2 marathons in my case) you'll know that there comes a point where you feel about ripe to explode from JUST carbs.
Agreed. Stick to complex carbs for the majority of you're diet where possible and save the simple ones for treats. (And I personally try to have these around workout time but that's just me)
And yep, I had a carb refeed last week that was 800g in a day. THAT was intense!0 -
The protein stuff isn't magical either. Protein has a 30+% TEF, so it's really around 3 usable calories per gram. If you go from 50g protein a day to 200g protein per day and maintain the same nominal calorie intake, you have created a 150 calorie deficit in terms of usable calories relative to your previous diet.
For reference, TEF on carbs is 10% or less. Fat is basically 0%.
This is the real reason behind things people often explain with voodoo.
I'm not really familiar with TEF- if protein has a 30% TEF does that mean that it takes 30% of it's own calories to digest the protein? So, 200g protein * 4cal/g * 0.7 = 560 usable calories
vs
50 g protein * 4 cal * 0.7 = 140 usable calories
Obviously my math doesn't make sense here so I must not understand TEF correctly. Please explain. 0 -
And yep, I had a carb refeed last week that was 800g in a day. THAT was intense!
Vomit. I bet you felt like the michelin man.0 -
Read this:The protein stuff isn't magical either. Protein has a 30+% TEF, so it's really around 3 usable calories per gram. If you go from 50g protein a day to 200g protein per day and maintain the same nominal calorie intake, you have created a 150 calorie deficit in terms of usable calories relative to your previous diet.
For reference, TEF on carbs is 10% or less. Fat is basically 0%.
This is the real reason behind things people often explain with voodoo.
I'm not really familiar with TEF- if protein has a 30% TEF does that mean that it takes 30% of it's own calories to digest the protein? So, 200g protein * 4cal/g * 0.7 = 560 usable calories
vs
50 g protein * 4 cal * 0.7 = 140 usable calories
Obviously my math doesn't make sense here so I must not understand TEF correctly. Please explain.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html0 -
And yep, I had a carb refeed last week that was 800g in a day. THAT was intense!
Vomit. I bet you felt like the michelin man.
uhuh. And I eat massive meals regularly but that was just insane. (required though) 0 -
The protein stuff isn't magical either. Protein has a 30+% TEF, so it's really around 3 usable calories per gram. If you go from 50g protein a day to 200g protein per day and maintain the same nominal calorie intake, you have created a 150 calorie deficit in terms of usable calories relative to your previous diet.
For reference, TEF on carbs is 10% or less. Fat is basically 0%.
This is the real reason behind things people often explain with voodoo.
I'm not really familiar with TEF- if protein has a 30% TEF does that mean that it takes 30% of it's own calories to digest the protein? So, 200g protein * 4cal/g * 0.7 = 560 usable calories
vs
50 g protein * 4 cal * 0.7 = 140 usable calories
Obviously my math doesn't make sense here so I must not understand TEF correctly. Please explain.
[/quote]
You're right on... TEF=thermic effect of food, and it means exactly what you said: roughly 30% of protein calories are consumed in the process of converting it to usable energy.
Where it is relevant is:
200g of carbs = 200 *4 * 0.9 = 720 usable calories (carbs actually vary a lot. Whole grains are a little over 10%, while e. g. Corn syrup is closer to 0.
89g of fat = 89 * 9 = 800 usable calories
200g of protein = 200 * 4 * 0.7 = 560 usable calories.
However, according to the FDA and thus food labels. All 3 are considered to have identical caloric value.
Those are not exact, but give an idea of why this is a relevant concept (and one that is typically not controlled for in fitness studies)
Typed from phone, pardon typos.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