A Calorie is NOT Just a Calorie - New Study

124»

Replies

  • AprilRenewed
    AprilRenewed Posts: 691 Member
    Is the obvious really that hard to see?

    If I consume 2000 calories per day at a macro ratio of 40/25/35 (P/C/F), I am eating 200 g of protein, 125 g of carbs, and about 78 g of fat. It does not matter whether I eat at McDonald's or from an organic farmer's market, as long as the food fits within my macro targets.

    McDonald's does not sell some fatal kind of protein. They don't sell magic carbs that are going to give me smoker's lungs (or otherwise "ruin my insides").

    The reason a Big Mac would generally be a bad choice for someone with the calorie and macro goals stated above is because it's a 550 calorie burger with a macro ratio of 18/34/48 (P/C/F). You don't get much bang for your calorie buck if you're trying to achieve a daily protein target of 40%. It's just not all that practical.

    The reason McDonald's is a bad choice for the average person is because the average person has no idea how many calories he/she is eating per day or what his/her macro ratios are on a day-to-day basis or what his/her BMR or TDEE is, etc. THAT is the problem.

    Okay, let's pretend for a minute that anything you order from MacDonalds falls within the average macro ratio of 40/30/30 (carbs/protein/fat) even though we know it doesn't.

    What about the sugars? The amount of saturated fat? Trans fats? Cholesterol? Sodium? And the lack of vitamins?

    Do you guys realize that even if you get the 40/30/30, it's possible all that fat is the bad kind (saturated or trans). It's likely there's a ton of sugar? And there are very few vitamins?

    Do you realize what that would do to you inside, even if it didn't make you visibly fat?

    That's called skinny fat, and it's just as bad! The things it would do to your heart, to your intestines during digestion, to your arteries...
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Is the obvious really that hard to see?

    If I consume 2000 calories per day at a macro ratio of 40/25/35 (P/C/F), I am eating 200 g of protein, 125 g of carbs, and about 78 g of fat. It does not matter whether I eat at McDonald's or from an organic farmer's market, as long as the food fits within my macro targets.

    McDonald's does not sell some fatal kind of protein. They don't sell magic carbs that are going to give me smoker's lungs (or otherwise "ruin my insides").

    The reason a Big Mac would generally be a bad choice for someone with the calorie and macro goals stated above is because it's a 550 calorie burger with a macro ratio of 18/34/48 (P/C/F). You don't get much bang for your calorie buck if you're trying to achieve a daily protein target of 40%. It's just not all that practical.

    The reason McDonald's is a bad choice for the average person is because the average person has no idea how many calories he/she is eating per day or what his/her macro ratios are on a day-to-day basis or what his/her BMR or TDEE is, etc. THAT is the problem.

    Okay, let's pretend for a minute that anything you order from MacDonalds falls within the average macro ratio of 40/30/30 (carbs/protein/fat) even though we know it doesn't.

    What about the sugars? The amount of saturated fat? Trans fats? Cholesterol? Sodium? And the lack of vitamins?

    Do you guys realize that even if you get the 40/30/30, it's possible all that fat is the bad kind (saturated or trans). It's likely there's a ton of sugar? And there are very few vitamins?

    Do you realize what that would do to you inside, even if it didn't make you visibly fat?

    That's called skinny fat, and it's just as bad! The things it would do to your heart, to your intestines during digestion, to your arteries...

    Do tell what's bad about sat fats and all trans fats. And you may want to check up and see what skinny fat actually refers to...
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    If I consume 2000 calories per day at a macro ratio of 40/25/35 (P/C/F), I am eating 200 g of protein, 125 g of carbs, and about 78 g of fat. It does not matter whether I eat at McDonald's or from an organic farmer's market, as long as the food fits within my macro targets.

    If all our bodies need were macronutrients this might be so. Try living on just oil, protein powder and simple sugar and let me know how that works out for you.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Is the obvious really that hard to see?

    If I consume 2000 calories per day at a macro ratio of 40/25/35 (P/C/F), I am eating 200 g of protein, 125 g of carbs, and about 78 g of fat. It does not matter whether I eat at McDonald's or from an organic farmer's market, as long as the food fits within my macro targets.

    McDonald's does not sell some fatal kind of protein. They don't sell magic carbs that are going to give me smoker's lungs (or otherwise "ruin my insides").

    The reason a Big Mac would generally be a bad choice for someone with the calorie and macro goals stated above is because it's a 550 calorie burger with a macro ratio of 18/34/48 (P/C/F). You don't get much bang for your calorie buck if you're trying to achieve a daily protein target of 40%. It's just not all that practical.

    The reason McDonald's is a bad choice for the average person is because the average person has no idea how many calories he/she is eating per day or what his/her macro ratios are on a day-to-day basis or what his/her BMR or TDEE is, etc. THAT is the problem.

    Okay, let's pretend for a minute that anything you order from MacDonalds falls within the average macro ratio of 40/30/30 (carbs/protein/fat) even though we know it doesn't.

    What about the sugars? The amount of saturated fat? Trans fats? Cholesterol? Sodium? And the lack of vitamins?

    Do you guys realize that even if you get the 40/30/30, it's possible all that fat is the bad kind (saturated or trans). It's likely there's a ton of sugar? And there are very few vitamins?

    Do you realize what that would do to you inside, even if it didn't make you visibly fat?

    That's called skinny fat, and it's just as bad! The things it would do to your heart, to your intestines during digestion, to your arteries...

    I am not advocating eating at Mc Donald's because I find it gross, but they have great Unsweetened Ice-Tea and black coffee so I do spend a buck or 2 every once in a while when I am out on tea or coffee.

    There is nothing wrong with saturated fat. Vegetable oils are more likely to be worse off for your body than saturated fats.

    Man made trans fats are bad for you yes.

    Saturated fat and cholesterol doesn't do anything to your heart, intestines or arteries (which you already said heart)...............
  • AprilRenewed
    AprilRenewed Posts: 691 Member
    Is the obvious really that hard to see?

    If I consume 2000 calories per day at a macro ratio of 40/25/35 (P/C/F), I am eating 200 g of protein, 125 g of carbs, and about 78 g of fat. It does not matter whether I eat at McDonald's or from an organic farmer's market, as long as the food fits within my macro targets.

    McDonald's does not sell some fatal kind of protein. They don't sell magic carbs that are going to give me smoker's lungs (or otherwise "ruin my insides").

    The reason a Big Mac would generally be a bad choice for someone with the calorie and macro goals stated above is because it's a 550 calorie burger with a macro ratio of 18/34/48 (P/C/F). You don't get much bang for your calorie buck if you're trying to achieve a daily protein target of 40%. It's just not all that practical.

    The reason McDonald's is a bad choice for the average person is because the average person has no idea how many calories he/she is eating per day or what his/her macro ratios are on a day-to-day basis or what his/her BMR or TDEE is, etc. THAT is the problem.

    Okay, let's pretend for a minute that anything you order from MacDonalds falls within the average macro ratio of 40/30/30 (carbs/protein/fat) even though we know it doesn't.

    What about the sugars? The amount of saturated fat? Trans fats? Cholesterol? Sodium? And the lack of vitamins?

    Do you guys realize that even if you get the 40/30/30, it's possible all that fat is the bad kind (saturated or trans). It's likely there's a ton of sugar? And there are very few vitamins?

    Do you realize what that would do to you inside, even if it didn't make you visibly fat?

    That's called skinny fat, and it's just as bad! The things it would do to your heart, to your intestines during digestion, to your arteries...

    Do tell what's bad about sat fats and all trans fats. And you may want to check up and see what skinny fat actually refers to...

    I never said that either is bad for you in moderation.

    I said too much is bad. And if you ate MacDonald's all the time, you'd have way too much of both. Which is NOT good.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12867692/ns/health-fitness/t/more-reasons-cut-back-saturated-fats/#.T_Mqp5HakoE

    http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/nutrition/fat/overview.html

    http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/Fat.aspx

    http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-312-7454-0,00.html

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-full-story/#the-bottom-line

    From the last one which lists its reputable sources in an easy to find manner:

    The Bottom Line: Recommendations for Fat Intake

    Although the different types of fat have a varied—and admittedly confusing—effect on health and disease, the basic message is simple: Out with the bad, in with the good. You can do this by choosing foods with healthy fats, limiting foods that are high in saturated fat, and avoiding trans fat. Here’s how to make it happen:

    Eliminate trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils. Food labels should say “0” (zero) on the line for trans fat; also scan the ingredient list to make sure it does not contain partially hydrogenated oils (food labeling laws allow food makers to have up to 0.5 grams of trans fat in a product but still list “0” on the line for trans fats). Fortunately, most food manufacturers have removed trans fats from their products. In restaurants, steer clear of fried foods, biscuits, and other baked goods, unless you know that the restaurant has eliminated trans fat (many already have).

    Limit your intake of saturated fats by cutting back on red meat and full-fat dairy foods. Try replacing red meat with beans, nuts, poultry, and fish whenever possible, and switching from whole milk and other full-fat dairy foods to lower fat versions, or just eating smaller amounts of full-fat dairy products, such as cheese. Don’t replace red meat with refined carbohydrates (white bread, white rice, potatoes, and the like).

    In place of butter, use liquid vegetable oils rich in polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, in cooking and at the table. Olive oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, corn oil, peanut oil, and the like are great sources of healthy fat.

    Eat one or more good sources of omega-3 fats every day. Fish, walnuts, canola or soybean oil, ground flax seeds or flaxseed oil are excellent sources of omega-3 fats.
  • AprilRenewed
    AprilRenewed Posts: 691 Member
    If I consume 2000 calories per day at a macro ratio of 40/25/35 (P/C/F), I am eating 200 g of protein, 125 g of carbs, and about 78 g of fat. It does not matter whether I eat at McDonald's or from an organic farmer's market, as long as the food fits within my macro targets.

    If all our bodies need were macronutrients this might be so. Try living on just oil, protein powder and simple sugar and let me know how that works out for you.

    Thank you!
  • LaurenAOK
    LaurenAOK Posts: 2,475 Member
    So basically... eat clean?
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Is the obvious really that hard to see?

    If I consume 2000 calories per day at a macro ratio of 40/25/35 (P/C/F), I am eating 200 g of protein, 125 g of carbs, and about 78 g of fat. It does not matter whether I eat at McDonald's or from an organic farmer's market, as long as the food fits within my macro targets.

    McDonald's does not sell some fatal kind of protein. They don't sell magic carbs that are going to give me smoker's lungs (or otherwise "ruin my insides").

    The reason a Big Mac would generally be a bad choice for someone with the calorie and macro goals stated above is because it's a 550 calorie burger with a macro ratio of 18/34/48 (P/C/F). You don't get much bang for your calorie buck if you're trying to achieve a daily protein target of 40%. It's just not all that practical.

    The reason McDonald's is a bad choice for the average person is because the average person has no idea how many calories he/she is eating per day or what his/her macro ratios are on a day-to-day basis or what his/her BMR or TDEE is, etc. THAT is the problem.

    Okay, let's pretend for a minute that anything you order from MacDonalds falls within the average macro ratio of 40/30/30 (carbs/protein/fat) even though we know it doesn't.

    What about the sugars? The amount of saturated fat? Trans fats? Cholesterol? Sodium? And the lack of vitamins?

    Do you guys realize that even if you get the 40/30/30, it's possible all that fat is the bad kind (saturated or trans). It's likely there's a ton of sugar? And there are very few vitamins?

    Do you realize what that would do to you inside, even if it didn't make you visibly fat?

    That's called skinny fat, and it's just as bad! The things it would do to your heart, to your intestines during digestion, to your arteries...

    Do tell what's bad about sat fats and all trans fats. And you may want to check up and see what skinny fat actually refers to...
    I never said that either is bad for you in moderation.

    I said too much is bad. And if you ate MacDonald's all the time, you'd have way too much of both. Which is NOT good.
    Do you guys realize that even if you get the 40/30/30, it's possible all that fat is the bad kind (saturated or trans).

    It looks like you said all sat and trans fats are bad


    From the last one which lists its reputable sources in an easy to find manner:

    The Bottom Line: Recommendations for Fat Intake

    Although the different types of fat have a varied—and admittedly confusing—effect on health and disease, the basic message is simple: Out with the bad, in with the good. You can do this by choosing foods with healthy fats, limiting foods that are high in saturated fat, and avoiding trans fat. Here’s how to make it happen:

    Eliminate trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils. Food labels should say “0” (zero) on the line for trans fat; also scan the ingredient list to make sure it does not contain partially hydrogenated oils (food labeling laws allow food makers to have up to 0.5 grams of trans fat in a product but still list “0” on the line for trans fats). Fortunately, most food manufacturers have removed trans fats from their products. In restaurants, steer clear of fried foods, biscuits, and other baked goods, unless you know that the restaurant has eliminated trans fat (many already have).

    It appears they are talking about synthetic trans fats, when you said all trans fats were bad
  • AprilRenewed
    AprilRenewed Posts: 691 Member
    Is the obvious really that hard to see?

    If I consume 2000 calories per day at a macro ratio of 40/25/35 (P/C/F), I am eating 200 g of protein, 125 g of carbs, and about 78 g of fat. It does not matter whether I eat at McDonald's or from an organic farmer's market, as long as the food fits within my macro targets.

    McDonald's does not sell some fatal kind of protein. They don't sell magic carbs that are going to give me smoker's lungs (or otherwise "ruin my insides").

    The reason a Big Mac would generally be a bad choice for someone with the calorie and macro goals stated above is because it's a 550 calorie burger with a macro ratio of 18/34/48 (P/C/F). You don't get much bang for your calorie buck if you're trying to achieve a daily protein target of 40%. It's just not all that practical.

    The reason McDonald's is a bad choice for the average person is because the average person has no idea how many calories he/she is eating per day or what his/her macro ratios are on a day-to-day basis or what his/her BMR or TDEE is, etc. THAT is the problem.

    Okay, let's pretend for a minute that anything you order from MacDonalds falls within the average macro ratio of 40/30/30 (carbs/protein/fat) even though we know it doesn't.

    What about the sugars? The amount of saturated fat? Trans fats? Cholesterol? Sodium? And the lack of vitamins?

    Do you guys realize that even if you get the 40/30/30, it's possible all that fat is the bad kind (saturated or trans). It's likely there's a ton of sugar? And there are very few vitamins?

    Do you realize what that would do to you inside, even if it didn't make you visibly fat?

    That's called skinny fat, and it's just as bad! The things it would do to your heart, to your intestines during digestion, to your arteries...

    Do tell what's bad about sat fats and all trans fats. And you may want to check up and see what skinny fat actually refers to...
    I never said that either is bad for you in moderation.

    I said too much is bad. And if you ate MacDonald's all the time, you'd have way too much of both. Which is NOT good.
    Do you guys realize that even if you get the 40/30/30, it's possible all that fat is the bad kind (saturated or trans).

    It looks like you said all sat and trans fats are bad


    From the last one which lists its reputable sources in an easy to find manner:

    The Bottom Line: Recommendations for Fat Intake

    Although the different types of fat have a varied—and admittedly confusing—effect on health and disease, the basic message is simple: Out with the bad, in with the good. You can do this by choosing foods with healthy fats, limiting foods that are high in saturated fat, and avoiding trans fat. Here’s how to make it happen:

    Eliminate trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils. Food labels should say “0” (zero) on the line for trans fat; also scan the ingredient list to make sure it does not contain partially hydrogenated oils (food labeling laws allow food makers to have up to 0.5 grams of trans fat in a product but still list “0” on the line for trans fats). Fortunately, most food manufacturers have removed trans fats from their products. In restaurants, steer clear of fried foods, biscuits, and other baked goods, unless you know that the restaurant has eliminated trans fat (many already have).

    It appears they are talking about synthetic trans fats, when you said all trans fats were bad

    Read again.

    No. I said it's POSSIBLE that all the fats you'd be getting from the fast food are the bad kind. Meaning there are NO good fats - Omega fats - in there.

    I'm done. Ya'll do what you want to do. I don't really care.

    But I would appreciate it if you were just a little more respectful. It's possible to disagree and still be kind.
  • RuthieCass
    RuthieCass Posts: 247 Member
    TL;DR

    Calories are calories are calories... Studies like this are a WASTE of time.

    No they are not. Many of us have known for a long time that all calories are NOT equal.

    When the body processes calories differently from one another makes them not equal.

    Exactly.

    I'm actually testing a theory right now. I used to have carbs as my late night snack - popcorn or a serving of chips or oatmeal (yes, oatmeal). Until I gained a pound. Now, I'm trying to end my night with less carbs and more protein. So far, I've lost a pound.

    A whole POUND???!!!!!

    Groundbreaking.

    I was exaggerating. It was more.

    "Exaggerating": I don't think that word means what you think it means.

    Besides that, you never said over what period of time you lost the one lb. If it was relatively quickly, I would say that most of it was probably water. Carbs and salt make you retain water, FYI.
  • RuthieCass
    RuthieCass Posts: 247 Member
    Study Challenges The Notion That A Calorie Is Just A Calorie

    ...

    Each of the study's 21 adult participants (ages 18-40) first had to lose 10 to 15 percent of their body weight, and after weight stabilization, completed all three of the following diets in random order, each for four weeks at a time. The randomized crossover design allowed for rigorous observation of how each diet affected all participants, regardless of the order in which they were consumed:

    ...


    On top of the points @LesterBlackst and others have made, why would the researchers have the dieters switch plans every four weeks? How do we know that the "increased metabolism" effect is really due to the low-GI diet when the diets are switched so rapidly? Seems very poorly controlled and executed.
This discussion has been closed.