A calorie is not a calorie

Long_and_Lean

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432

Translation: Even if you eat the same number of calories, what makes up those calories matters.

AllTehBeers

The topic title is misleading. 1 calorie is 1 calorie. Health and body composition definitely depend on what those calories are made of.

PinkEnvyx

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432

Translation: Even if you eat the same number of calories, what makes up those calories matters.

That made me dizzy. :indifferent: Did they state the subjects ate the same amount of calories?

Long_and_Lean

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432

Translation: Even if you eat the same number of calories, what makes up those calories matters.

That made me dizzy. :indifferent: Did they state the subjects ate the same amount of calories?

Yes.
"After achieving 10% to 15% weight loss while consuming a run-in diet, participants consumed an isocaloric low-fat diet (60% of energy from carbohydrate, 20% from fat, 20% from protein; high glycemic load), low-glycemic index diet (40% from carbohydrate, 40% from fat, and 20% from protein; moderate glycemic load), and very low-carbohydrate diet (10% from carbohydrate, 60% from fat, and 30% from protein; low glycemic load) in random order, each for 4 weeks."

Isocaloric = same calories.

Long_and_Lean

The topic title is misleading. 1 calorie is 1 calorie. Health and body composition definitely depend on what those calories are made of.

Technically, you are correct. However, my choice of title was based on a commonly used phrase in the diet and nutrition world. There is often lots of confusion about whether it matters where your calories come from, and that phrase is commonly used. In terms of energy value, yes -- one calorie will always be one calorie. The effect that one calorie has on the complex biochemical processes in your body will, however, differ. Which is in essence what you stated.

PinkEnvyx

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432

Translation: Even if you eat the same number of calories, what makes up those calories matters.

That made me dizzy. :indifferent: Did they state the subjects ate the same amount of calories?

Yes.

I see now where they stated isocaloric/similar caloric values. Thanks

treetop57

CONCLUSION:

Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre-weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in [Resting Energy Expenditure] and [Total Energy Expenditure] that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low-glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet.

I read an anti-low carb guy who said that this is misleading because the low-carb diet results in water loss, so the specific energy expenditures are artificially inflated due to the lower water weight.

Long_and_Lean

CONCLUSION:

Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre-weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in [Resting Energy Expenditure] and [Total Energy Expenditure] that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low-glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet.

I read an anti-low carb guy who said that this is misleading because the low-carb diet results in water loss, so the specific energy expenditures are artificially inflated due to the lower water weight.

That's a good point (considering carbohydrates replenish your glycogen stores in muscles, which retains water), if they were using weight as an outcome measure . However, what they're looking at is total energy expenditure, which is a function of body composition.

Acg67

Effects of 4 weight-loss diets differing in fat, protein, and carbohydrate on fat mass, lean mass, visceral adipose tissue, and hepatic fat: results from the POUNDS LOST trial

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2012/01/17/ajcn.111.026328

treetop57

CONCLUSION:

Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre-weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in [Resting Energy Expenditure] and [Total Energy Expenditure] that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low-glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet.

I read an anti-low carb guy who said that this is misleading because the low-carb diet results in water loss, so the specific energy expenditures are artificially inflated due to the lower water weight.

That's a good point (considering carbohydrates replenish your glycogen stores in muscles, which retains water), if they were using weight as an outcome measure . However, what they're looking at is total energy expenditure, which is a function of body composition.

They're looking at total energy expenditure per pound of body weight. Reducing water weight reduces the denominator of that equation, artificially inflating the TEE.

But I'm vaguely remembering an off-hand comment I read a month or so ago in an interview of some old doctor referred to as the "father of weight loss." I wish I could find that article, but so far no luck!

AllTehBeers

The topic title is misleading. 1 calorie is 1 calorie. Health and body composition definitely depend on what those calories are made of.

Technically, you are correct. However, my choice of title was based on a commonly used phrase in the diet and nutrition world. There is often lots of confusion about whether it matters where your calories come from, and that phrase is commonly used. In terms of energy value, yes -- one calorie will always be one calorie. The effect that one calorie has on the complex biochemical processes in your body will, however, differ. Which is in essence what you stated.

I agree. In relation to where your calories come from, I think it depends on what you are trying to achieve. Strictly weight loss depends on calories. Anything else is getting into health and compositon territory.

ETA: I'm not saying that weight loss itself doesn't improve health markers, I'm just trying to keep it simple.

Long_and_Lean

Effects of 4 weight-loss diets differing in fat, protein, and carbohydrate on fat mass, lean mass, visceral adipose tissue, and hepatic fat: results from the POUNDS LOST trial

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2012/01/17/ajcn.111.026328

Oooh, good point! My only criticism of that is that they proclaim that "dietary goals were not fully met". Not sure how much impact that would have though, but you make an excellent point. I actually secretly hope that you are right, because I don't feel particularly well when I eat a low-carb diet :-\

Long_and_Lean

CONCLUSION:

Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre-weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in [Resting Energy Expenditure] and [Total Energy Expenditure] that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low-glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet.

I read an anti-low carb guy who said that this is misleading because the low-carb diet results in water loss, so the specific energy expenditures are artificially inflated due to the lower water weight.

That's a good point (considering carbohydrates replenish your glycogen stores in muscles, which retains water), if they were using weight as an outcome measure . However, what they're looking at is total energy expenditure, which is a function of body composition.

They're looking at total energy expenditure per pound of body weight. Reducing water weight reduces the denominator of that equation, artificially inflating the TEE.

But I'm vaguely remembering an off-hand comment I read a month or so ago in an interview of some old doctor referred to as the "father of weight loss." I wish I could find that article, but so far no luck!

I hadn't considered that. Here's one more thing to look at: they're examining TEE after 10-15% weight loss. For the average 170lb person, that's like what, 17-20lbs or so? I don't believe that glycogen stores account for more than about 5lbs of water or so (correct me if I'm wrong). That's not to say that changing the denominator of that equation wouldn't make a difference, it all depends on how big a difference they observed *scampers off to examine the data*

Sidesteal

And regardless of this or any study for the moment, I think that there's a pretty strong disconnect in the calorie arguing.

I would have to HOPE that people who claim a calorie is a calorie, mean that the unit of energy being supplied as it goes into the mouth, is the same. I don't know many people (at least, many educated ones) that would claim that 1000 calories of steak is the exact equivalent, on both sides of the equation, as 1000 calories of oatmeal. You can only conclude that the energy-in is equivalent. You can't ignore the effects on body composition, you can't ignore the differences in TEF, etc.

But on the other hand, the statement "a calorie is a calorie" -- when thrown around recklessly and without consideration to the above paragraph, you then get people who attempt to disregard thermodynamics because of the above. 1000 calories of beef is not the same as 1000 calories of oatmeal therefore thermodynamics is wrong. We are wizards.

Lina4Lina

It seems this study needs a little verification because why do they list the low fat diet as having the highest REE (Resting energy expenditure) than the other 2 diets? So the one with the highest resting energy expenditure had the biggest decrease but it appears to still have a higher overall REE than the other 2 diets? I guess I might have to go read the actual study.

MoreBean13

And regardless of this or any study for the moment, I think that there's a pretty strong disconnect in the calorie arguing.

I would have to HOPE that people who claim a calorie is a calorie, mean that the unit of energy being supplied as it goes into the mouth, is the same. I don't know many people (at least, many educated ones) that would claim that 1000 calories of steak is the exact equivalent, on both sides of the equation, as 1000 calories of oatmeal. You can only conclude that the energy-in is equivalent. You can't ignore the effects on body composition, you can't ignore the differences in TEF, etc.

But on the other hand, the statement "a calorie is a calorie" -- when thrown around recklessly and without consideration to the above paragraph, you then get people who attempt to disregard thermodynamics because of the above. 1000 calories of beef is not the same as 1000 calories of oatmeal therefore thermodynamics is wrong. We are wizards.

Dang! You beat me to the punch. TEF means an ingested calorie is not always an output/storage calorie.

Long_and_Lean

And regardless of this or any study for the moment, I think that there's a pretty strong disconnect in the calorie arguing.

I would have to HOPE that people who claim a calorie is a calorie, mean that the unit of energy being supplied as it goes into the mouth, is the same. I don't know many people (at least, many educated ones) that would claim that 1000 calories of steak is the exact equivalent, on both sides of the equation, as 1000 calories of oatmeal. You can only conclude that the energy-in is equivalent. You can't ignore the effects on body composition, you can't ignore the differences in TEF, etc.

But on the other hand, the statement "a calorie is a calorie" -- when thrown around recklessly and without consideration to the above paragraph, you then get people who attempt to disregard thermodynamics because of the above. 1000 calories of beef is not the same as 1000 calories of oatmeal therefore thermodynamics is wrong. We are wizards.

Sadly, many people don't make that distinction, presumably because they want a quick and easy answer to something that's, well, not quick or easy. Also,

treetop57

They're looking at total energy expenditure per pound of body weight. Reducing water weight reduces the denominator of that equation, artificially inflating the TEE.

But I'm vaguely remembering an off-hand comment I read a month or so ago in an interview of some old doctor referred to as the "father of weight loss." I wish I could find that article, but so far no luck!

And apparently remembering it badly. Looking more closely at the abstract, it appears they are looking at total REE and TEE, not REE and TEE per pound.

RESULTS:

Compared with the pre-weight-loss baseline, the decrease in REE was greatest with the low-fat diet (mean [95% CI], -205 [-265 to -144] kcal/d), intermediate with the low-glycemic index diet (-166 [-227 to -106] kcal/d), and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet (-138 [-198 to -77] kcal/d; overall P = .03; P for trend by glycemic load = .009). The decrease in TEE showed a similar pattern (mean [95% CI], -423 [-606 to -239] kcal/d; -297 [-479 to -115] kcal/d; and -97 [-281 to 86] kcal/d, respectively; overall P = .003; P for trend by glycemic load < .001). Hormone levels and metabolic syndrome components also varied during weight maintenance by diet (leptin, P < .001; 24-hour urinary cortisol, P = .005; indexes of peripheral [P = .02] and hepatic [P = .03] insulin sensitivity; high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol, P < .001; non-HDL cholesterol, P < .001; triglycerides, P < .001; plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, P for trend = .04; and C-reactive protein, P for trend = .05), but no consistent favorable pattern emerged.

At least, I assume "kcal/d" is kcals per day.

Chillyw

It would be nice if they said what alpha value they used. I'm guessing they used an alpha of .05, which, given the other study, it would be nice to have it run again to verify the result.

FireBrand80

And regardless of this or any study for the moment, I think that there's a pretty strong disconnect in the calorie arguing.

I would have to HOPE that people who claim a calorie is a calorie, mean that the unit of energy being supplied as it goes into the mouth, is the same. I don't know many people (at least, many educated ones) that would claim that 1000 calories of steak is the exact equivalent, on both sides of the equation, as 1000 calories of oatmeal. You can only conclude that the energy-in is equivalent. You can't ignore the effects on body composition, you can't ignore the differences in TEF, etc.

But on the other hand, the statement "a calorie is a calorie" -- when thrown around recklessly and without consideration to the above paragraph, you then get people who attempt to disregard thermodynamics because of the above. 1000 calories of beef is not the same as 1000 calories of oatmeal therefore thermodynamics is wrong. We are wizards.

Sadly, many people don't make that distinction, presumably because they want a quick and easy answer to something that's, well, not quick or easy. Also,

"A calorie is a calorie" developed as a response to the belief that, for example, if I had 300 calories left for the day, that a cookie would some be more lipogenic than cottage cheese.

To which the standard response is: "You can't just eat cookies all day."

At which point, I facepalm and bow out.

Sidesteal

"A calorie is a calorie" developed as a response to the belief that, for example, if I had 300 calories left for the day, that a cookie would some be more lipogenic than cottage cheese.

To which the standard response is: "You can't just eat cookies all day."

At which point, I facepalm and bow out.

^ Agreed, only I'm not smart enough to bow out.

taylor5877

"A calorie is a calorie" developed as a response to the belief that, for example, if I had 300 calories left for the day, that a cookie would some be more lipogenic than cottage cheese.

To which the standard response is: "You can't just eat cookies all day."

At which point, I facepalm and bow out.

^ Agreed, only I'm not smart enough to bow out.

I'd shift the argument here. Is the cookie going to make you fat? no.

Are there MUCH better choices to be made there , that on average and over time would have a significantly positive impact on your health vs. that cookie's likely negative impact? Yes.

joejccva71

"A calorie is a calorie" developed as a response to the belief that, for example, if I had 300 calories left for the day, that a cookie would some be more lipogenic than cottage cheese.

To which the standard response is: "You can't just eat cookies all day."

At which point, I facepalm and bow out.

^ Agreed, only I'm not smart enough to bow out.

I'm not either. I guess that's why I'm on "banned row" from these forums.

Sidesteal

"A calorie is a calorie" developed as a response to the belief that, for example, if I had 300 calories left for the day, that a cookie would some be more lipogenic than cottage cheese.

To which the standard response is: "You can't just eat cookies all day."

At which point, I facepalm and bow out.

^ Agreed, only I'm not smart enough to bow out.

I'd shift the argument here. Is the cookie going to make you fat? no.

Are there MUCH better choices to be made there , that on average and over time would have a significantly positive impact on your health vs. that cookies likely negative impact? Yes.

That depends on context and whether or not the individual is able to reach nutrient sufficiency (micro and macro) before the cookie. In some cases, you're correct.

But I don't believe there's evidence that the inclusion of a portion of discretional calories, to a diet that is nutrient sufficient, is in any way detrimental or even inferior to one that replaces those cookies with something else.

joejccva71

"A calorie is a calorie" developed as a response to the belief that, for example, if I had 300 calories left for the day, that a cookie would some be more lipogenic than cottage cheese.

To which the standard response is: "You can't just eat cookies all day."

At which point, I facepalm and bow out.

^ Agreed, only I'm not smart enough to bow out.

I'd shift the argument here. Is the cookie going to make you fat? no.

Are there MUCH better choices to be made there , that on average and over time would have a significantly positive impact on your health vs. that cookie's likely negative impact? Yes.

But again, we're talking in terms of FAT LOSS. And to be quite honest, being healthy is subjective. You can still eat vegetables instead of a cookie and be unhealthy. Healthy is a broad word involving exercise plans, total diet, genetics, whether or not you smoke, etc etc. Lots of factors here.

jofjltncb6

Just to be clear, the relationship between a pound of muscle and a pound of fat is still the same, right?

joejccva71

Just to be clear, the relationship between a pound of muscle and a pound of fat is still the same, right?

Wizardry

Sidesteal

But again, we're talking in terms of FAT LOSS.

^ And that's also a great point, in which case it wouldn't matter to any significance.

FireBrand80

"A calorie is a calorie" developed as a response to the belief that, for example, if I had 300 calories left for the day, that a cookie would some be more lipogenic than cottage cheese.

To which the standard response is: "You can't just eat cookies all day."

At which point, I facepalm and bow out.

^ Agreed, only I'm not smart enough to bow out.

I'd shift the argument here. Is the cookie going to make you fat? no.

Are there MUCH better choices to be made there , that on average and over time would have a significantly positive impact on your health vs. that cookie's likely negative impact? Yes.

If you have any evidence that that a 100% "clean" diet improves health markers over an otherwise healthy diet that contains moderate amounts of junk food, I'd like to see it.

Edit: Sidesteal said the same thing, lol

Trechechus

I thought this was going to be a thread about the difference between calories and Calories. I was so ready to get my chemistry on with some nerds.

zgochenour

Great link, thanks for sharing. I'll note that the difference in REE is pretty small all things considered, but definitely a significant result.

I wonder if a larger study would reveal a useful pattern in the leptin data. That would make sense from what I understand about leptin. Overweight people have high leptin and low leptin sensitivity. After dieting, they have low leptin and low leptin sensitivity. higher fat diet increases leptin signalling. But, I don't have a deep understanding of this.