Calories are not the same according to Dr. Fuhrman

ebony467

Honestly I think weight loss differs from person to person and so does health. I'm a big person on candy and most junk food, and since childhood I've been finicky about eating "healthy" foods because I was allowed to eat whatever crap I wanted. I was never unhealthy though even now I'm skinnier and more in shape than my friends. I will admit though without a proper diet junk food brought my mood down and made exercising harder for me. My friend who weighs over 70 lbs more than me eats better than I do and probably no more than I do. She wondered if I would get healthier and lose weight if I cut out the enormous amounts of soda (pop as I call it) I drink and processed foods. Sadly I really haven't

jayliospecky

Micronutrient deficiencies take a while to develop, but that issue aside, given equal calories AND macronutrients, weight loss isn't going to change assuming normal insulin function. Neither is body composition.


That doesn't mean using cake as your primary source of carbohydrate is a good idea.

Chocolate is better, right?

*crossing fingers*

itgeekwoman

If the goal is to be healthy then he's right. Not every calorie is created equal on the nutrient scale. Not every calorie with the same nutrients is equal to every person.

Look at what each person requires and you will see that it is unique for each one of us. Our personal chemistry requires a unique mix of nutrients to run the human machine. Look at what your blood will absorb, look at what your body will tolerate and skip all the rest of the crap.

I do this and since I started, I've not been sick, I haven't had allergies and I was getting 11 shots a week at one point.

At this point in my life, I am healthier than I was at 20. I'm 42. Find a nutritionist that will figure out what foods you can eat, when you should eat them and work with that person to get a menu plan that will help you get healthy. It works. My blood pressure is normal now too.

jenilla1

weight loss is calorie in, calorie out

health is determined by nutrient content

you're simply talking about two different things.

Agreed.

opus649

He states that if one person eats the exact same # of calories but varied greatly in micronutrient values, one could gain and one could lose weight. Depending on how the body is reacting to the food that was eaten. So the word "calorie" must be accounted for. As he's describing units of calorie value for two groups of food.

Interesting. Does he have any actual data gathered through a scientific study?

Not that I've seen. But doesn't concern himself with weight loss as the main issue of his diets.

Hmmm... well in that case I could make the argument that people who put all of their food in a blender and eat it as soup will lose more weight because of molecular changes caused by blah blah blah.... if I don't have a controlled study that backs me up, what good is it?

VMarkV

Weight does not really matter...it can be heavily influenced by glycogen storage, for every g of carb stored, 3-4g water is also retained (that can add up to several pounds easily).

Body composition is what matters, not weight

grinch031

It would be far less confusing if Dr. Fuhrman didn't use the word "calorie", which, as has been pointed out, is a unit of heat.

Just say "some foods are healthier than others." But then, everyone already knows that...

He states that if one person eats the exact same # of calories but varied greatly in micronutrient values, one could gain and one could lose weight. Depending on how the body is reacting to the food that was eaten. So the word "calorie" must be accounted for. As he's describing units of calorie value for two groups of food.

That seems very questionable. I would be willing to bet that his experiments don't control for thermic effect of food, which is the most common error I see in nutritional research.

Doesn't the TEF just get cancelled out anyways when comparing fat to carb intake? For instance, my understanding of the metabolic ward studies is that if calories and protein are held constant, there is no difference in TDEE or fat-derived weight loss between high carb and high fat diets. That mean's the TEF advantage of a high carb diet is somehow cancelled out by some aspect of EE of the high fat diet such that both diets yield the same results.

wackyfunster

It would be far less confusing if Dr. Fuhrman didn't use the word "calorie", which, as has been pointed out, is a unit of heat.

Just say "some foods are healthier than others." But then, everyone already knows that...

He states that if one person eats the exact same # of calories but varied greatly in micronutrient values, one could gain and one could lose weight. Depending on how the body is reacting to the food that was eaten. So the word "calorie" must be accounted for. As he's describing units of calorie value for two groups of food.

That seems very questionable. I would be willing to bet that his experiments don't control for thermic effect of food, which is the most common error I see in nutritional research.

Doesn't the TEF just get cancelled out anyways when comparing fat to carb intake? For instance, my understanding of the metabolic ward studies is that if calories and protein are held constant, there is no difference in TDEE or fat-derived weight loss between high carb and high fat diets. That mean's the TEF advantage of a high carb diet is somehow cancelled out by some aspect of EE of the high fat diet such that both diets yield the same results.

Refined carbs and fat have a very low TEF, so that would make sense. OTOH, "whole" carbs typically have around a 10% TEF, which can make a substantial difference in net usable calories. Fat has a negligible TEF for practical purposes.

Relevant study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897733/

I definitely don't dispute that some foods are healthier than others, but from a sheer weight loss perspective, having eaten both 'clean' and 'dirty' I have found that, accounting for TEF differences (using 10% as a "rule of thumb" difference between refined and processed carbs), there is no real difference (hence the 6 cups of frosted flakes this evening :P).

Edit: GRAMMARS FAIL FROM TEH TIERDS

crisanderson27

It would be far less confusing if Dr. Fuhrman didn't use the word "calorie", which, as has been pointed out, is a unit of heat.

Just say "some foods are healthier than others." But then, everyone already knows that...

He states that if one person eats the exact same # of calories but varied greatly in micronutrient values, one could gain and one could lose weight. Depending on how the body is reacting to the food that was eaten. So the word "calorie" must be accounted for. As he's describing units of calorie value for two groups of food.

That seems very questionable. I would be willing to bet that his experiments don't control for thermic effect of food, which is the most common error I see in nutritional research.

Doesn't the TEF just get cancelled out anyways when comparing fat to carb intake? For instance, my understanding of the metabolic ward studies is that if calories and protein are held constant, there is no difference in TDEE or fat-derived weight loss between high carb and high fat diets. That mean's the TEF advantage of a high carb diet is somehow cancelled out by some aspect of EE of the high fat diet such that both diets yield the same results.

Refined carbs and fat have a very low TEF, so that would make sense. OTOH, "whole" carbs typically have around a 10% TEF, which can make a substantial difference in net usable calories. Fat has a negligible TEF for practical purposes.

Relevant study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897733/

I definitely don't dispute that some foods are healthier than others, but from a sheer weight loss perspective, having eaten both 'clean' and 'dirty' I have found that, accounting for TEF differences (using 10% as a "rule of thumb" difference between refined and processed carbs), there is no real difference (hence the 6 cups of frosted flakes this evening :P).

Edit: GRAMMARS FAIL FROM TEH TIERDS

And I thought I was the only one that does that =p.

wackyfunster

And I thought I was the only one that does that =p.

You know your dinner is awesome when you have to eat your cereal from a mixing bowl

neanderthin

He states that if one person eats the exact same # of calories but varied greatly in micronutrient values, one could gain and one could lose weight. Depending on how the body is reacting to the food that was eaten. So the word "calorie" must be accounted for. As he's describing units of calorie value for two groups of food.

Interesting. Does he have any actual data gathered through a scientific study?

Not that I've seen. But doesn't concern himself with weight loss as the main issue of his diets.

Understanding who Dr. Fuhrman is as a nutritional educator and sage to the universe would shed some light. Bottom line he is self promoting to make a living and personally, telling people they can beat pretty much every disease known to man by eating his way is a good story, but as any good Dr. will tell you, disease is not just afflicted on people that don't follow his program.......there is no get out of jail card. Try following his food pyramid for a month.

Personally I consume a natural diet and have for a long time, but I'm not going to kid myself that I might actually get cancer from eating my less than desirable, in comparison diet. A good salesman is all I can say, with a great presence and a growing bank account.

imchicbad

sounds like he explains exacly why people who eat thier caloric limit- but all eat junk, never lose weight and wonder why.

JeffseekingV

He states that if one person eats the exact same # of calories but varied greatly in micronutrient values, one could gain and one could lose weight. Depending on how the body is reacting to the food that was eaten. So the word "calorie" must be accounted for. As he's describing units of calorie value for two groups of food.

Interesting. Does he have any actual data gathered through a scientific study?

Not that I've seen. But doesn't concern himself with weight loss as the main issue of his diets.

Hmmm... well in that case I could make the argument that people who put all of their food in a blender and eat it as soup will lose more weight because of molecular changes caused by blah blah blah.... if I don't have a controlled study that backs me up, what good is it?

Probably not but go ahead. It's certainly within your right make that type of claim. But I wouldn't equate the two as a similar analogy

JeffseekingV

He states that if one person eats the exact same # of calories but varied greatly in micronutrient values, one could gain and one could lose weight. Depending on how the body is reacting to the food that was eaten. So the word "calorie" must be accounted for. As he's describing units of calorie value for two groups of food.

Interesting. Does he have any actual data gathered through a scientific study?

Not that I've seen. But doesn't concern himself with weight loss as the main issue of his diets.

Understanding who Dr. Fuhrman is as a nutritional educator and sage to the universe would shed some light. Bottom line he is self promoting to make a living and personally, telling people they can beat pretty much every disease known to man by eating his way is a good story, but as any good Dr. will tell you, disease is not just afflicted on people that don't follow his program.......there is no get out of jail card. Try following his food pyramid for a month.

Personally I consume a natural diet and have for a long time, but I'm not going to kid myself that I might actually get cancer from eating my less than desirable, in comparison diet. A good salesman is all I can say, with a great presence and a growing bank account.

so you eat sorta like him but not enough to be "fooled" right? Why eat clean at all of you don't subcribe to cleaner eating = better health. I never said his theory is the end all. But it's an interesting perspective and certainly goes against alot of what of some regulars suscribe to.

You have to remember, alot of Americans don't eat "undesirable". They eat down right ridiciulous. And over 50+ years, it adds up. IMHO

JeffseekingV

bump

sherylhs

weight loss is calorie in, calorie out

health is determined by nutrient content

you're simply talking about two different things.

Weight loss IS calorie in, calorie out ultimately ... Even as a keen Low Carb/Paleo kind of guy I'll concede that. You cannae change the laws of thermodynamics.

BUT, I believe that the macronutrient breakdown of those calories has a critical effect in how the weight is lost and, crucially, whether it is fat or lean muscle that is being lost.

I believe that you can influence whether the body is keen to metabolise any fat stores (of which even a relatively lean person has plenty to live on).

I started to make REAL progress when I read up about fat metabolism. I stopped being hungry and deprived and 'on a diet' and started to listen to my body and feed it Real Food with all the fats, protein and healthy carbs (veggies, mostly leafy) that go along with it.

I recently posted a link to a free book on my blog, 64 pages of mostly solid reasons for watching the carbs for my money ...

Now, I have to consider buying new jeans because these are falling off me, life is a *****.

(edit) What really, *kitten* is verboten? Well, that's going to make me smile for the rest of the day. What is this, a kindergarden?

I know this is an old topic... but:
I agree with this.

Especially this:

BUT, I believe that the macronutrient breakdown of those calories has a critical effect in how the weight is lost and, crucially, whether it is fat or lean muscle that is being lost.