A calorie isn't a calorie.

wellbert

Borrowed from a guest article on Mark's daily apple...


University of Florida researcher J.W. Krieger analyzed 87 studies and found that those people who ate SANE calories lost an average of 12 more pounds of body fat compared to those who ate an equal quantity of lower quality calories.
C.M. Young at Cornell University split people into three groups, each eating 1,800 calories per day, but at different levels of quality. The highest-quality group lost 86.5% more body fat than the lowest-quality group.
In the Annals of Internal Medicine, F.L. Benoît compared a reduced-calorie low-quality diet to a reduced-calorie high-quality diet. After ten days the high-quality diet burned twice as much body fat.
Additional studies by researchers U. Rabast (1978,1981), P. Greene (2003), N.H. Baba (1999), A. Golay (1996), M.E. Lean (1997), C.M. Young (1971), and D.K. Layman (2003) all show that people who ate higher-quality calories lost an average of 22% more weight than those who ate the exact same quantity of lower-quality calories.


Anyone have personal experience with not changing calorie intake, JUST quality, and saw a positive effect in body composition?

yarwell

what are "SANE" calories ?

cunfewzed1

what are "SANE" calories ?

Acg67

Borrowed from a guest article on Mark's daily apple...


University of Florida researcher J.W. Krieger analyzed 87 studies and found that those people who ate SANE calories lost an average of 12 more pounds of body fat compared to those who ate an equal quantity of lower quality calories.
C.M. Young at Cornell University split people into three groups, each eating 1,800 calories per day, but at different levels of quality. The highest-quality group lost 86.5% more body fat than the lowest-quality group.
In the Annals of Internal Medicine, F.L. Benoît compared a reduced-calorie low-quality diet to a reduced-calorie high-quality diet. After ten days the high-quality diet burned twice as much body fat.
Additional studies by researchers U. Rabast (1978,1981), P. Greene (2003), N.H. Baba (1999), A. Golay (1996), M.E. Lean (1997), C.M. Young (1971), and D.K. Layman (2003) all show that people who ate higher-quality calories lost an average of 22% more weight than those who ate the exact same quantity of lower-quality calories.


Anyone have personal experience with not changing calorie intake, JUST quality, and saw a positive effect in body composition?

Of course Sisson wouldn't mention Krieger's current stance on that meta analysis, since sisson is a dope

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285

Sidesteal

Borrowed from a guest article on Mark's daily apple...


University of Florida researcher J.W. Krieger analyzed 87 studies and found that those people who ate SANE calories lost an average of 12 more pounds of body fat compared to those who ate an equal quantity of lower quality calories.
C.M. Young at Cornell University split people into three groups, each eating 1,800 calories per day, but at different levels of quality. The highest-quality group lost 86.5% more body fat than the lowest-quality group.
In the Annals of Internal Medicine, F.L. Benoît compared a reduced-calorie low-quality diet to a reduced-calorie high-quality diet. After ten days the high-quality diet burned twice as much body fat.
Additional studies by researchers U. Rabast (1978,1981), P. Greene (2003), N.H. Baba (1999), A. Golay (1996), M.E. Lean (1997), C.M. Young (1971), and D.K. Layman (2003) all show that people who ate higher-quality calories lost an average of 22% more weight than those who ate the exact same quantity of lower-quality calories.


Anyone have personal experience with not changing calorie intake, JUST quality, and saw a positive effect in body composition?

This is pretty intuitive if you're comparing different macronutrients, due to the effects of protein intake on LBM. Again, consider the differences in the majority of the above studies are about body fat lost, not weight lost.

For example, if you're comparing a diet that is vastly insufficient in protein intake to one with higher protein intake, I think one could expect better lean mass in the higher protein intake which would show greater fat loss relative to the total amount of weight lost. But, none of this matters since Acg posted Krieger's stance on this, and I suggest people read it.

EDIT: Thanks Acg for the above link.

adrushe

I mean it makes sense..... if all you ate was McDonalds you're going to gain weight versus if you ate the exact same amount of calories but ate spinach, carrotts, grains, etc. Even if you didn't work out you'd still lose weight eating healthier foods.

It has to do with processed foods and the amount of sodium/sugar in them versus natural foods.

blair_bear

Satiety, Aggression, Nutrition, and Efficiency

Acg67

I mean it makes sense..... if all you ate was McDonalds you're going to gain weight versus if you ate the exact same amount of calories but ate spinach, carrotts, grains, etc. Even if you didn't work out you'd still lose weight eating healthier foods.

It has to do with processed foods and the amount of sodium/sugar in them versus natural foods.

Please stop with such nonsense

natpalit

SANE is an acronym, which doing a quick google for it shows up. It stands for
Satiety, Agression, Nutrition and Efficiency.

The basic idea is that by eating higher "quality" more "SANE" foods it can benefit weight loss.

http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/sane-studies/

Sidesteal

I mean it makes sense..... if all you ate was McDonalds you're going to gain weight versus if you ate the exact same amount of calories but ate spinach, carrotts, grains, etc.

Actually, you wouldn't. If you're in a calorie deficit in both cases of the above you would lose weight in both cases.

bcattoes

I mean it makes sense..... if all you ate was McDonalds you're going to gain weight versus if you ate the exact same amount of calories but ate spinach, carrotts, grains, etc. Even if you didn't work out you'd still lose weight eating healthier foods.

It has to do with processed foods and the amount of sodium/sugar in them versus natural foods.

Um ... what?!? :huh:

Auspiciousgirl

Actually, yes, I have! It's how I started losing weight. I wanted to feel more energetic, so I began to follow the Canada Food Guide. I wasn't planning to lose weight or count calories, but since I lost my first 7-10 lbs simply by eating healthier (while I had a broken foot, so no exercising at that time), that's what got me going to actually log my food and calories, while continuing to incorporate healthy foods.

ZeroWoIf

Borrowed from a guest article on Mark's daily apple...


University of Florida researcher J.W. Krieger analyzed 87 studies and found that those people who ate SANE calories lost an average of 12 more pounds of body fat compared to those who ate an equal quantity of lower quality calories.
C.M. Young at Cornell University split people into three groups, each eating 1,800 calories per day, but at different levels of quality. The highest-quality group lost 86.5% more body fat than the lowest-quality group.
In the Annals of Internal Medicine, F.L. Benoît compared a reduced-calorie low-quality diet to a reduced-calorie high-quality diet. After ten days the high-quality diet burned twice as much body fat.
Additional studies by researchers U. Rabast (1978,1981), P. Greene (2003), N.H. Baba (1999), A. Golay (1996), M.E. Lean (1997), C.M. Young (1971), and D.K. Layman (2003) all show that people who ate higher-quality calories lost an average of 22% more weight than those who ate the exact same quantity of lower-quality calories.


Anyone have personal experience with not changing calorie intake, JUST quality, and saw a positive effect in body composition?

Of course Sisson wouldn't mention Krieger's current stance on that meta analysis, since sisson is a dope

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285

That study highlights pretty much what most disregarded, the effect on insulin and diets. High Protein and low carbohydrate diets are a great way to diet because they also happen to allow people who happen to have high insulin resistance to make better progress. Most people who try it for the first time just never cycle any carbohydrates back and feel like crap all the time and end up leaving the diet because they missed breads badly, or foods with higher carbohydrates.

KyleB65

Makes sense to me.

The term SANE is new to me but, one of the first things I did when I started taking a serious look at my food was to drop the "junk" and eat healthier.

My belief (with no science knowledge to back it up) is that most of the "fabricated", "packaged" and "prepared" foods available these days provide taste but little nutritional value. The more "whole" foods and the less "prepared" food I eat, the better I feel.

kaotik26

Hmm kinda like yesterday when I ate waffle fries that landed me 450 calories when I could've have eaten 6 salads for that much and felt a lot better energy-wise?

Annaruthus

I mean it makes sense..... if all you ate was McDonalds you're going to gain weight versus if you ate the exact same amount of calories but ate spinach, carrotts, grains, etc.

Actually, you wouldn't. If you're in a calorie deficit in both cases of the above you would lose weight in both cases.

Perhaps if you quite a bit overweight, but if you are at a healthy body weight and looking for say a 6 pack for summer, you need to eat healthier, "clean" (another coined term for unprocessed) foods. I was running 30 miles per weeek last year in preparation for a half marathon, and could only get down to 18% body fat. I hadn't completely let go of my favorite unhealthy foods. This year I'm training for a fitness competition, and while still working out, it has been my clean healthy diet that has helped me get down to almost 14% body fat.

Your body is not a garbage can, so why treat it that way? It is the only one you are going to get!

Sidesteal

I mean it makes sense..... if all you ate was McDonalds you're going to gain weight versus if you ate the exact same amount of calories but ate spinach, carrotts, grains, etc.

Actually, you wouldn't. If you're in a calorie deficit in both cases of the above you would lose weight in both cases.

Perhaps if you quite a bit overweight, but if you are at a healthy body weight and looking for say a 6 pack for summer, you need to eat healthier, "clean" (another coined term for unprocessed) foods.

Given equal nutrient intake (which is a key when making this comparison), the differences aren't significant. Your body sees nutrients, not clean/unclean. If you can get your protein and EFA requirement from "unclean" foods, you'll do just fine.

Now, for health reasons, should you eat fast food all the time? No. But the notion that body composition will suffer from the inclusion of "unclean" foods, isn't substantiated in my opinion.

Are you familiar with Lyle Mcdonald? Ironic that his last name is McDonald given this discussion:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html

Your body is not a garbage can, so why treat it that way? It is the only one you are going to get!

Once again, if we're talking about eating fast food for every meal then sure, that's not a good idea. But the inclusion of fast food, or treats, among a diet that meets micro and macro requirements, is not going to be a hindrance.

lauraniwa

I recently read an article (NEJM, 2012) that compared diet macronutrient content in post obese subjects, and its effect on TDEE. It found that higher CHO did reduce TDEE compared to moderate ot low CHO diets, but that subjects had some widely variable response (and a few methodological flaws IMO).

But like other people have mentioned it was calories and composition NOT "clean" vs "junk".

DanaDark

A calorie is of course a calorie. Factually speaking there is a difference between a Calorie and a calorie. (Notice the capitalization, to avoid confusion many simply say kcals)

From my understanding, the body requires protein to do many functions in the body such as chemical reactions, cellular repair, etc. ALL these actions require protein AND energy in the form of calories. If you do not get enough protein, your body will not use the calories associated with the work.

You wouldn't pay a construction worker full time to build a house and then deny him access to wood and nails would you?

Any diet that gets sufficient protein will be superior to a diet that does not.

This is not due to calories being unequal, it has to do with energy expenditure.

Acg67

I mean it makes sense..... if all you ate was McDonalds you're going to gain weight versus if you ate the exact same amount of calories but ate spinach, carrotts, grains, etc.

Actually, you wouldn't. If you're in a calorie deficit in both cases of the above you would lose weight in both cases.

Perhaps if you quite a bit overweight, but if you are at a healthy body weight and looking for say a 6 pack for summer, you need to eat healthier, "clean" (another coined term for unprocessed) foods. I was running 30 miles per weeek last year in preparation for a half marathon, and could only get down to 18% body fat. I hadn't completely let go of my favorite unhealthy foods. This year I'm training for a fitness competition, and while still working out, it has been my clean healthy diet that has helped me get down to almost 14% body fat.

And there are no other variables you changed except for eating "clean"? Training, cals, macros, everything is the exact same?

RuthieCass

Borrowed from a guest article on Mark's daily apple...


University of Florida researcher J.W. Krieger analyzed 87 studies and found that those people who ate SANE calories lost an average of 12 more pounds of body fat compared to those who ate an equal quantity of lower quality calories.
C.M. Young at Cornell University split people into three groups, each eating 1,800 calories per day, but at different levels of quality. The highest-quality group lost 86.5% more body fat than the lowest-quality group.
In the Annals of Internal Medicine, F.L. Benoît compared a reduced-calorie low-quality diet to a reduced-calorie high-quality diet. After ten days the high-quality diet burned twice as much body fat.
Additional studies by researchers U. Rabast (1978,1981), P. Greene (2003), N.H. Baba (1999), A. Golay (1996), M.E. Lean (1997), C.M. Young (1971), and D.K. Layman (2003) all show that people who ate higher-quality calories lost an average of 22% more weight than those who ate the exact same quantity of lower-quality calories.


Anyone have personal experience with not changing calorie intake, JUST quality, and saw a positive effect in body composition?

The definition of these "S.A.N.E.." calories seems pretty needless. It's already well known that foods "rich in water, fiber, and protein" are satiating. I can eat these types of satisfying foods without going on a paleo diet. The big claim here is that these S.A.N.E. calories help you to lose a higher percentage of body fat. Well, it's also been well-established that adequate PROTEIN, whether accompanied by Paleo or other S.A.N.E. foods or not, allow you to retain muscle and lose a larger percentage of fat on a diet. Add in the problem of underestimating intake with *self reporting* calorie intake, especially from those with higher "inSANE" intake, then this study is relatively useless. But the biggest diet factor in maximizing % fat loss is adequate protein intake, not SANE or paleo foods. Numerous studies have shown that adequate protein on a diet allow you to shed a higher % of fat, so this scientist should have corrected for protein intake.

Also, if you want to get more into the inSANE stuff-- fat from food is more readily stored as fat than either protein or carbs. So, the paleo diet- generally high protein, high fat, low carb- may be less "SANE" than a high protein, low fat, HIGH carb diet in terms of the A (Aggression) and E (Efficiency). This is why many bodybuilders follow a high protein, high carb, low fat diet when bulking- to minimize fat gain. Of course, when you are eating at a deficit, you don't need to worry so much about this since your fat stores will be decreasing no matter the carb/fat ratios.