is a calorie just a calorie?

joejccva71

This is a small study both in length and in number of subjects, but it does indicate that calories are not necessarily equal:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19396658/?i=11&from=bmr insulin

Read the study again, and tell me what you see. In fact it's in the subject line.

dahlialia

Yes, I am aware that the study was about weight GAIN. That doesn't necessarily make it irrelevant though. If all calories aren't equal where weight gain is concerned, maybe they aren't where weight loss is concerned either.

The proportion of people with some amount of insulin resistance is not overly small. If you have insulin resistance, the more carbs you eat, the higher your insulin levels. The higher your insulin levels, the lower your BMR. The lower your BMR, the harder it is to create a deficit and lose weight. The source of calories can matter.

tigersword

Yes, I am aware that the study was about weight GAIN. That doesn't necessarily make it irrelevant though. If all calories aren't equal where weight gain is concerned, maybe they aren't where weight loss is concerned either.

The proportion of people with some amount of insulin resistance is not overly small. If you have insulin resistance, the more carbs you eat, the higher your insulin levels. The higher your insulin levels, the lower your BMR. The lower your BMR, the harder it is to create a deficit and lose weight. The source of calories can matter.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/145544.php
High Protein and High fat diets also contribute to insulin resistance. It's got nothing to do with eating carbs. Being overweight causes insulin resistance, losing weight improves insulin resistance. Excess fat, protein, and carbs all contribute to insulin resistance.

wackyfunster

The higher your insulin levels, the lower your BMR. The lower your BMR, the harder it is to create a deficit and lose weight.

2000-1500=500
1500-1000=500
25,000,500-25,000,000=500

O_o

Sarauk2sf

Bumping to read through later.

dahlialia

I wonder if one of you could explain these numbers then

For six weeks I ate 1500 net cals per day, including 100 grams carbs. I lost no weight.

Now I eat 1200 net cals per day, including 50 grams carbs. Protein and exercise are the same as before. I am losing 3 pounds per week.

300 calories lower x 7 days = 2100 calories lower. That's not even the calories in one pound of fat, let alone three.

ninerbuff

Making it simple: a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy an is the same whether it's a carb, protein, or fat. How each is utilized depends on how your body chemically reacts on it's own metabolism.
So while a calorie is a calorie, MACRONUTRIENT content will dictate how your metabolism uses those macronutrients. Some respond better to a carb rich diet, some don't. Some high protein, some don't. I had issues with both and can only find out if I experiment a little with clients to see how their bodies react to macronutrient ratios.


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

yarwell

I wonder if one of you could explain these numbers then

For six weeks I ate 1500 net cals per day, including 100 grams carbs. I lost no weight.

Now I eat 1200 net cals per day, including 50 grams carbs. Protein and exercise are the same as before. I am losing 3 pounds per week.

300 calories lower x 7 days = 2100 calories lower. That's not even the calories in one pound of fat, let alone three.

how long have you done the low carb bit (for context) ? 50g of carbs is 200 calories, so you subtracted something else to get to 1200 ?

Acg67

I wonder if one of you could explain these numbers then

For six weeks I ate 1500 net cals per day, including 100 grams carbs. I lost no weight.

Now I eat 1200 net cals per day, including 50 grams carbs. Protein and exercise are the same as before. I am losing 3 pounds per week.

300 calories lower x 7 days = 2100 calories lower. That's not even the calories in one pound of fat, let alone three.

You are making the assumption you are losing pure fat, that none of the weight loss is water or anything else

yarwell

Why would anybody want to lose weight that included losing muscle ????

I can see how less leg muscle would be necessary to support and move 168 lbs than 200 lbs, perhaps ?

yarwell

Now I eat 1200 net cals per day, including 50 grams carbs. Protein and exercise are the same as before. I am losing 3 pounds per week.

300 calories lower x 7 days = 2100 calories lower. That's not even the calories in one pound of fat, let alone three.

300 calories / 4 = 75 grams a day * 7 = 525g / 454 = 1.15 lbs of muscle / 70% = 1.65 lbs per week of muscle/glycogen + water

Still hard to balance.............

yarwell

Just for information really, as I found it, a comparison of eating straight fat and protein without carbs in either case :-

http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/4/767/T1.expansion.html

The insulin line shows a big response to the protein (casein) and nothing to the fat (cream).

tigersword

I wonder if one of you could explain these numbers then

For six weeks I ate 1500 net cals per day, including 100 grams carbs. I lost no weight.

Now I eat 1200 net cals per day, including 50 grams carbs. Protein and exercise are the same as before. I am losing 3 pounds per week.

300 calories lower x 7 days = 2100 calories lower. That's not even the calories in one pound of fat, let alone three.

Not enough information. Net calories are meaningless when it comes to these calculations, there's no way to correlate NET calories with TOTAL macronutrient consumption. Plus, as another poster pointed out, a 50 gram reduction in carbs only accounts for 200 calories. If you changed your consumption by at least 300 calories you didn't keep protein and fat constant. It's impossible.

So, how many total calories were you eating then vs now. How much protein, fat? Nobody can give you a realistic answer if you don't give all the information.

ladyraven68

I wonder if one of you could explain these numbers then

For six weeks I ate 1500 net cals per day, including 100 grams carbs. I lost no weight.

Now I eat 1200 net cals per day, including 50 grams carbs. Protein and exercise are the same as before. I am losing 3 pounds per week.

300 calories lower x 7 days = 2100 calories lower. That's not even the calories in one pound of fat, let alone three.

http://www.burnthefat.com/calories-in-a-pound-of-fat.html

3500 calories in a lb of fat - only 600 in a lb of muscle.

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


"3,500 calorie/week deficit can yield drastically different changes in body mass depending on what percentage of tissue you’re losing. I’m going to use the extremes of 100% fat, 50/50 fat and muscle, and 100% muscle.


Condition -- - - Energy Yield - - Total Weight Lost
100% Fat -- - - 3500 cal/lb - - 1 pound
50%Fat/50% Muscle - - 2050 cal/lb - - 1.7 pounds
100% Muscle - - 600 cal/lb - - 5.8 pounds


See what’s going on? The assumption of one pound per week (3,500 cal/week deficit) is only valid for the condition where you lose 100% fat. If you lose 50% fat and 50% muscle, you will lose 1.7 pounds in a week for the same 3,500 calorie deficit. Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week."

joejccva71

I wonder if one of you could explain these numbers then

For six weeks I ate 1500 net cals per day, including 100 grams carbs. I lost no weight.

Now I eat 1200 net cals per day, including 50 grams carbs. Protein and exercise are the same as before. I am losing 3 pounds per week.

300 calories lower x 7 days = 2100 calories lower. That's not even the calories in one pound of fat, let alone three.

http://www.burnthefat.com/calories-in-a-pound-of-fat.html

3500 calories in a lb of fat - only 600 in a lb of muscle.

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


"3,500 calorie/week deficit can yield drastically different changes in body mass depending on what percentage of tissue you’re losing. I’m going to use the extremes of 100% fat, 50/50 fat and muscle, and 100% muscle.


Condition -- - - Energy Yield - - Total Weight Lost
100% Fat -- - - 3500 cal/lb - - 1 pound
50%Fat/50% Muscle - - 2050 cal/lb - - 1.7 pounds
100% Muscle - - 600 cal/lb - - 5.8 pounds


See what’s going on? The assumption of one pound per week (3,500 cal/week deficit) is only valid for the condition where you lose 100% fat. If you lose 50% fat and 50% muscle, you will lose 1.7 pounds in a week for the same 3,500 calorie deficit. Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week."

Damn you beat me to it. Was going to post Lyle's pages lol.

I'm curious as to what "exercise" he's doing. I can guarantee you that he's losing not only water, maybe a little fat, but also muscle tissue. I'm also wondering what his protein intake is.

Yarwell? Care to enlighten us?

ladyraven68

I wonder if one of you could explain these numbers then

For six weeks I ate 1500 net cals per day, including 100 grams carbs. I lost no weight.

Now I eat 1200 net cals per day, including 50 grams carbs. Protein and exercise are the same as before. I am losing 3 pounds per week.

300 calories lower x 7 days = 2100 calories lower. That's not even the calories in one pound of fat, let alone three.

http://www.burnthefat.com/calories-in-a-pound-of-fat.html

3500 calories in a lb of fat - only 600 in a lb of muscle.

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


"3,500 calorie/week deficit can yield drastically different changes in body mass depending on what percentage of tissue you’re losing. I’m going to use the extremes of 100% fat, 50/50 fat and muscle, and 100% muscle.


Condition -- - - Energy Yield - - Total Weight Lost
100% Fat -- - - 3500 cal/lb - - 1 pound
50%Fat/50% Muscle - - 2050 cal/lb - - 1.7 pounds
100% Muscle - - 600 cal/lb - - 5.8 pounds


See what’s going on? The assumption of one pound per week (3,500 cal/week deficit) is only valid for the condition where you lose 100% fat. If you lose 50% fat and 50% muscle, you will lose 1.7 pounds in a week for the same 3,500 calorie deficit. Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week."

Damn you beat me to it. Was going to post Lyle's pages lol.

Sorry

Believeth64

Bump

aippolito1

It really depends on how much weight you have to lose... starting out, I had 40 lbs to lose. I was eating 1200 calories per day, NOT eating my exercise calories, and just limiting what I was eating (not eating SUPER healthy), and I lost weight. BUT, once I got halfway... I had to clean up my diet, start eating my exercise calories, and increase my base calories (1200 went to 1400). Now I'm eating a base of 1330 on days I'm sedentary (only twice a week), and 1530 on days I'm lightly active, PLUS about 400-600 calories for my workout, and I have to eat PRETTY clean to lose weight. And by pretty clean I mean: most of my sugar comes from fruit, I don't eat a lot of fats that aren't natural, I try not to eat too many things that are processed, I eat whole grains, 120grams of protein per day, LOTS of fiber, etc.

I think for most people, if you have a lot to lose, just changing HOW much you eat will yield results... but as you get closer to your goal, the quality of calories definitely matter.

led6777

bump!

kbd388

Yup a cal is just a cal. Some foods contain other chemicals that make your body not as healthy. A corn muffin is pretty healthy and carbs are not the enemy. You don't have to be perfect to be thin. You just have to be aware of how much your eating.
The weight loss gurus take everything too far. You have to live in the real world, can you really exercise an hour and a half a day? Do you really have to eat perfectly? No, you don't. Over exercising can damage your body, and one scientist proved you can lose weight by eating only junk food. He stayed under his calorie allowance and lost 20 lbs. The takeaway is eat to make yourself feel good, exercise for that same reason and stay at the calorie level for the weight you want to be. A pure diet of twinkies doesn't make anyone feel energetic and good. Sitting on the couch all day doesn't either. Getting used to your real optimum calorie levels takes some time, but once you get there you are comfortable , happy and not in a struggle.

OP here, I haven't read everything yet, but this one caught my eye, because of this: You don't have to be perfect to be thin. You just have to be aware of how much your eating.

Yesterday I had a Blue Moon with an orange I'm not looking to be thin, just healthier than I was when I started