is a calorie just a calorie?

Acg67

And if you are in net cal deficit for the day, it doesn't matter. No need to be scared of the insulin fairy.

seems more efficient to banish the insulin fairy and be able to pull on fat reserves 24/24 rather than just after the glucose has got out of the way. But I don't disagree. You need a deficit to cause a loss, if you were on a drip of insulin it wouldn't happen though, so low carb gives me the best chance I feel.

Too bad low card/keto diets have no metabolic advantage

Sl1ghtly

1 calorie = 4.18400 joules

yarwell

1 calorie = 4.18400 joules

except the "calorie" used in nutrition is the kg calorie or Kcal or Cal which is 4.184 kJ

yarwell

Too bad low card/keto diets have no metabolic advantage

Yep. Shame that they come out better in many studies for fat loss too.

stardivap413

I know that the new weight watchers plan which I follow now has done a lot of studies and found out that a caloire is a calorie, but not all calories are created the same and our bodies process them differently. In the end just make better food choices. Incorporate more fruits/veggies, limit sodium, drink plenty of water! good luck

Acg67

Too bad low card/keto diets have no metabolic advantage

Yep. Shame that they come out better in many studies for fat loss too.

About 50/50 in ad lib studies, even less when protein content is matched and far less when they are tightly controlled. Do some research

yarwell

Do some research

Done plenty, actual low carb (as opposed to "a bit less") studies aren't that common, nor those with sufficient time on the diets to allow full adaptation. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969.full seems a fair example "Weight loss was greater for women in the Atkins diet group compared with the other diet groups at 12 months, and mean 12-month weight loss was significantly different between the Atkins and Zone diets (P<.05). "

Got an example to show me where low carb comes out worse than low fat, with similar protein ?

Why restrict to ad lib ? don't you disappear into a fog of reporting uncertainty then ?

kbd388

No, a calorie is not just a calorie. You can't eat 14 Twinkies a day (at 150 cal each) and expect to reach your goals. There is much more involved, especially in refined vs unprocessed foods and the body's insulin response to them.

Imagine you have two peeled oranges. One you drop in a juicer, the other one you eat like an apple. There are the same calories and nutrients in each one. HOWEVER, your body's response to eating it vs drinking it is wholly different. The juiced orange has already had a large portion of the digestive process already done for you, so the sugar in it slams into your bloodstream in a rush. Your body looks at this sudden surplus of simple carbs and says, whoa! I can only store so much of this in my liver and tissue as glycogen - but I better not waste the rest! So I'll just convert this stuff to fat, put a little away here, a little away there - for later, of course. Now, EAT the orange (normally, not chewing it for half an hour to replicate the juicer), and your body breaks it down in your stomach over TIME. The sugar enters your bloodstream in a trickle, not a flood. Your body uses the carbs directly, and doesn't try to store it as fat. Get it?


You need to eat a diet that is high in protein, at least 40% of calories and 50% if you really want results. A high protein diet is the absolute basis of any serious fat-loss plan. Yeah, everyone says that it doesn't matter just so long as you hit your targets - but that's bull****. Ask any bodybuilder getting ripped for a competition and you will hear the same thing - high protein, because it works. Chicken breast, turkey breast, egg whites, white fish, lean red meat. Your carbs should be complex, preferably fibrous - broccoli, beans, asparagus, cauliflower, spinach, etc.

this is so interesting, the orange example. thanks!

joejccva71

Too bad low card/keto diets have no metabolic advantage

Yep. Shame that they come out better in many studies for fat loss too.

Wait...are you agreeing or disagreeing with Acg? lol

He's right. They don't have a metabolic advantage over just normal dieting via eating a moderate calorie deficit.

joejccva71

Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets.
Johnston CS, Tjonn SL, Swan PD, White A, Hutchins H, Sears B.
Source
Department of Nutrition, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ 85212, USA. carol.johnston@asu.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Low-carbohydrate diets may promote greater weight loss than does the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet.
OBJECTIVE:
We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet.
DESIGN:
Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 34.4 +/- 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with approximately 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; approximately 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled.
RESULTS:
Mean (+/-SE) weight losses (6.3 +/- 0.6 and 7.2 +/- 0.8 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.324) and fat losses (3.4 and 5.5 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.111) did not differ significantly by group after 6 wk. Blood beta-hydroxybutyrate in the KLC dieters was 3.6 times that in the NLC dieters at week 2 (P = 0.018), and LDL cholesterol was directly correlated with blood beta-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum gamma-glutamyltransferase concentrations decreased in both diet groups during the 6-wk trial (P < 0.05). However, inflammatory risk (arachidonic acid:eicosapentaenoic acid ratios in plasma phospholipids) and perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet.
CONCLUSIONS:
KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046

Like Acg said. Do some research.

yarwell

He's right. They don't have a metabolic advantage over just normal dieting via eating a moderate calorie deficit.

I would agree there isn't a "metabolic advantage" in the way some people claim, all the energy changes are accounted for. If that's what you mean.

I do believe low carb or LCHF as the Swedes call it is more effective, but don't claim any magic metabolic advantage like you can eat any amount of calories as long as they aren't carbs as some have done.

joejccva71

He's right. They don't have a metabolic advantage over just normal dieting via eating a moderate calorie deficit.

I would agree there isn't a "metabolic advantage" in the way some people claim, all the energy changes are accounted for. If that's what you mean.

I do believe low carb or LCHF as the Swedes call it is more effective, but don't claim any magic metabolic advantage like you can eat any amount of calories as long as they aren't carbs as some have done.

Keto diets are really just a SLIGHTLY faster method of releasing water and glycogen. But as far as fat loss, very minimal difference.

yarwell

Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets.

Didn't show the opposite either, and both were reduced carbohydrate which is what I was advocating. The research I have done comes out with either inconclusive outcomes or favouring the low carb approach, but there's so much out there I would be interested to see something that comes out the other way.

Of course in the above study the key is to be found at the bottom: " HH is an employee of Zone Labs Inc. BS is a stockholder and serves on the boards of directors of Zone Labs Inc and Zone Cuisine Inc; he is also on the boards of directors of Zone Café and ZoneNet. None of the *other authors* had any personal or financial conflict of interest. "

Oops.

Sidesteal

And if you are in net cal deficit for the day, it doesn't matter. No need to be scared of the insulin fairy.

seems more efficient to banish the insulin fairy and be able to pull on fat reserves 24/24 rather than just after the glucose has got out of the way. But I don't disagree. You need a deficit to cause a loss, if you were on a drip of insulin it wouldn't happen though, so low carb gives me the best chance I feel.

Actually it's silly to try and micromanage the acute processes when you can just remain in a calorie deficit over time, and fat oxidation will exceed fat storage regardless of short term insulin fluctuations. So much easier.

See here:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

Acg67

Do some research

Done plenty, actual low carb (as opposed to "a bit less") studies aren't that common, nor those with sufficient time on the diets to allow full adaptation. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969.full seems a fair example "Weight loss was greater for women in the Atkins diet group compared with the other diet groups at 12 months, and mean 12-month weight loss was significantly different between the Atkins and Zone diets (P<.05). "

Got an example to show me where low carb comes out worse than low fat, with similar protein ?

Why restrict to ad lib ? don't you disappear into a fog of reporting uncertainty then ?

lol the A to Z weightloss study? Isn't it odd after 4 months none of the groups lost any more weight and in fact all diets group gained weight from the 6 month period on?

Here's the exact same setup with diff results

Dansinger ML, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets for Weight Loss and Heart Disease Risk Reduction. JAMA, 2005; 293: 43-53.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/293/1/43.full

yarwell

Actually it's silly to try and micromanage the acute processes when you can just remain in a calorie deficit over time, and fat oxidation will exceed fat storage regardless of short term insulin fluctuations. So much easier.

Not sure what's easier, I like the food I eat now and I don't have any hunger at all and no blood sugar roller coaster so I'm happy to be keto adapted and largely carb free.

Interesting link, thanks, I liked his peaks and troughs chart showing meals. I guess I have more of a level line with less ups and downs. Pity there are few studies without slugs of carbs in both the lower and higher protein cases when looking at insulin responses. Some protein + carbs vs protein + fat ones would be nice.

Sidesteal

Not sure what's easier,

I'm sure it works for you, I should have clarified what I meant: In terms of most dieters trying to analyze the overall efficacy of their diet -- it's not necessary at all to focus on acute things such as:

"What's going to happen if I eat that high GI food and my insulin spikes"

or

"Am I burning carbs or fat during my workout"

The entire line of thinking is silly because it focuses on the acute and not the big picture. Using the insulin example, if you (anyone, not you specifically) just eat at a deficit and consume adequate macronutrition, fat oxidation exceeds fat storage. The acute part is irrelevant when you pan out.

That' s what I meant by ease, just to be clear.

thelovelyLIZ

I think you need to look at the nutritional value of the calories you're eating as well. A bowl of vegetables may have 250 calories just like a can of soda, but those vegetables are going to have a lot more vitamins, minerals, and other good things for you to keep your body running smoothly.

So while you COULD lose weight eating twinkies and big macs, you will probably feel a lot different than if you lost weight eating fruits, vegetables, whole grain and lean protein.

earlyxer

1. A calorie is a calorie for weight loss.

NO IT IS NOT. THE ENERGY EXPENDITURE TO DIGEST EACH TYPE OF CALORIE IS DIFFERENT SO NET CALORIES CONSUMED VARIES WHETHER IT IS A CARB, PROTEIN, OR FAT.

2. The analogy in your 2nd paragraph is mind boggling.

IT IS NOT AN ANALOGY, IT IS AN EXAMPLE - AND IT IS TRUE.

3. If you eat so many carbs that it causes you to eat a calorie surplus above your TDEE, you'll get fat. It could even come from fruits and veggies. You'll still get fat.

I AGREE. HOWEVER, FIBROUS VEGETABLES ARE SO LOW IN CALORIC DENSITY YOU'D EXPLODE BEFORE YOU'D EAT ENOUGH BROCCOLI TO HIT 2100 CALORIES

4. Please do more research before commenting.

HEED YOUR OWN ADVICE.

5. As far as your "twinkie" thing. Go here --> http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html -

LOAD UP ON TWINKIES, THEN. GO FOR IT.

6. High protein doesn't burn fat. It helps repair broken muscle tissue, and helps retain LBM when dieting.

I NEVER SAID HIGH PROTEIN BURNS FAT. HIGH PROTEIN REPAIRS MUSCLE AND AT THE SAME TIME GENERATES A FEELING OF SATIATION THAT QUELLS HUNGER THAT SIMPLE CARBS AND FATS DO NOT WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HELPING TO RETAIN MUSCLE THAT OTHERWISE MAY BE CONSUMED WHEN IN A CALORIE DEFICIT.

7. And yes we are correct, it doesn't matter as long as you hit your targets and stay within your calorie intake goals based on the particular weight loss or weight gain goal you have.

FINE - THEN EAT STRICTLY CARBS AND FATS AND WE'LL HAVE A FAT LOSS COMPETITION. YOU WILL LOSE.

8. Meal timing doesn't matter. IRRELEVANT.

- I NEVER MENTIONED TIMING, YOUR COMMENT IS IRRELEVANT.

9. Food type doesn't matter. IRRELEVANT.

- SEE NUMBER 8

10. Edited so I don't hurt anyone's feelings over the internet.

- GO STUDY SOME MORE

yarwell

Isn't it odd after 4 months none of the groups lost any more weight and in fact all diets group gained weight from the 6 month period on?

indeed. Seems to happen in most studies when they're allowed home and revert to their old ways. The "Atkins" group at 12 months for example had 34.5% of their energy from carbs in month 12 - not sure what version of Atkins that's supposed to be. Despite that, the Atkins group did best at weight loss as shown at http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969/F2.expansion.html

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/293/1/43.full is unfortunately laughable, with very low adherence. Look at the carbohydrate intakes again - 54 to 223 grams/day by month two. Not a low carb diet unfortunately. But given all that there was " no statistically significant differences between diets" so I'm still looking at a positive bias in study outcomes overall favouring low carb.