A calorie is a calorie, but not always the same.

MoreBean13

Read this:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

Thank you for this article- I did a cursory read right now , but I will read it with my daytime brain tomorrow.

I think I realize my mistake in understanding.

150 grams (delta from 50 to 200 grams protein) * 4cal/g * 0.7 = 420 usable calories
150 grams (less carbohydrate or fat) * 4 cal/g *~ 0.95 = 570 usable calories
difference is ~150 calories.

although I think for this example you really would have to use a weighted average of cal/g between carbs and fat which makes the calorie deficit really dramatic - but I guess the realistic application of that would be like substituting a glazed doughnut with a chicken breast- and who wouldn't know instinctively which one of those two is better?!

d2footballJRC

Lyle Mcdonald does have a lot of good points. Layne Norton does as well. Both end with the same results just use different routes to get there. If I remember right Lyle Mcdonald besides his Diet 2.0 has a Keto book as well. Its been awhile since I dug into his reading, Ive been following Laynes PHAT program so been reading him more as late.

nickyfm

I completely agree! I have PCOS, so i have insulin resistance to some extent. I would say I get about 40% carb, 40% protein, 20% fat calories, but a lot of the time it shifts to protein being 50%, and carbs 30%.

I find that not only do I feel fuller, less cravy, and more energetic on protein dominant days, but I seem to look a lot more slender too.

so yes it definitely depends on what your body prefers. That's why so many of my skinny ***** friends eat trash, and don't gain an ounce!

mmapags

Lyle Mcdonald does have a lot of good points. Layne Norton does as well. Both end with the same results just use different routes to get there. If I remember right Lyle Mcdonald besides his Diet 2.0 has a Keto book as well. Its been awhile since I dug into his reading, Ive been following Laynes PHAT program so been reading him more as late.

You are correct on that. Lyle's book is called the Ketogenic Diet I think.

AeolianHarp

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.

I don't believe there is such thing as a good or bad carb. These words provide positive and negative connotations. I hate this silly association that some foods are bad and some foods are good. There is no such thing. You can literally wreck your diet with anything regardless if it's broccoli or gummy bears.

Do you realize that there's literally nothing wrong with white foods? To make my point:

"Cereals are considered an important source of nutrients both in human and animal nourishment. In this paper nutritional value of brown rice is compared to that of white rice in relation to nutrients. Results show that despite higher nutrients contents of brown rice compared to white rice, experimental datas does not provide evidence that the brown rice diet is better than the diet based on white rice. Possible antinutricional factors present in brown rice have adverse effects on bioavailability of this cereal nutrients."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9302338?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I've also posted a meta-analysis on here that showed consuming up to 50% of your grain intakes from refined sources has the same health benefits as eating 100% from non-refined sources.

What matters in the end is two things: dosage and time. Food isn't bad or good. Diets become healthy or unhealthy when the foods in them are in the wrong dosages for an extended period of time. 10 boxes of twinkies sounds bad in dosage but when I tell you it's 10 boxes over 2 years then it isn't so bad especially if the rest of the diet has sufficient micronutrients and the calories remain at maintenance. If twinkies were truly bad then they should elicit a negative response regardless of time and dosage.

wackyfunster

If twinkies were truly bad then they should elicit a negative response regardless of time and dosage.

Agreed. If a nutrition professor can lose weight and get healthier eating exclusively junk-food, this says quite a bit about the relative importance of caloric intake vs. food quality.

Matt_Wild

Losing weight and losing fat and maintaining lean body mass for a higher BMR and thus TDEE requirement when everything else is thrown in is completely different.

AeolianHarp

Agreed. If a nutrition professor can lose weight and get healthier eating exclusively junk-food, this says quite a bit about the relative importance of caloric intake vs. food quality.

I agree and it also shows how positive weight loss is on health. But, unfortunately, people on MFP misconstrue my position as one for mass consumption of nutrient-deficient foods. People cannot comprehend moderation for some reason.

Also, food isn't the only thing that factors into life. Emotional and psychological well-being are massive factors. When people talk Blue Zone they only think food yet, if I recall correctly, all these places also have strong community ties, low levels of stress, etc.