A calorie is not a calorie
Options
Replies
-
"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.0 -
"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.
0 -
"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.0 -
"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.0 -
Just to be clear, the relationship between a pound of muscle and a pound of fat is still the same, right?0
-
Just to be clear, the relationship between a pound of muscle and a pound of fat is still the same, right?
Wizardry0 -
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.0 -
"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, lol0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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.
Sorry to disappoint. This thread appears to be filled with rational, intelligent human beings for a change.0 -
Sorry to disappoint. This thread appears to be filled with rational, intelligent human beings for a change.
Give it time...just give it time.0 -
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.
Sorry to disappoint. This thread appears to be filled with rational, intelligent human beings for a change.
Lol! Its a miracle0 -
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.
Sorry to disappoint. This thread appears to be filled with rational, intelligent human beings for a change.
Wait for it.........0 -
Sorry to disappoint. This thread appears to be filled with rational, intelligent human beings for a change.
Give it time...just give it time.
Well, we could talk about how a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat, as you suggested. That's probably why Suzie Shmoozie is up 2lbs this week, because she's been putting on muscle. Not because she's been pounding 3000 calories of twinkies every day.
*ducks for cover*0 -
Sorry to disappoint. This thread appears to be filled with rational, intelligent human beings for a change.
Give it time...just give it time.
Well, we could talk about how a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat, as you suggested. That's probably why Suzie Shmoozie is up 2lbs this week, because she's been putting on muscle. Not because she's been pounding 3000 calories of twinkies every day.
*ducks for cover*
Lmao ooh you're bad0 -
I mean, so long as shes burning 3294018340731984713094701 calories doing 60 minutes of zumba every day, it's ok, right?
....I need to stop. :explode:0 -
I mean, so long as shes burning 3294018340731984713094701 calories doing 60 minutes of zumba every day, it's ok, right?
....I need to stop. :explode:
...or walking her cat...
...or doing light housecleaning...0 -
I mean, so long as shes burning 3294018340731984713094701 calories doing 60 minutes of zumba every day, it's ok, right?
....I need to stop. :explode:
...or walking her cat...
...or doing light housecleaning...
You mean I can count all that?? And the numbers are totally, 100% accurate? Man, I've been doing this MFP thing all wrong...0 -
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 think this is the article you're looking for. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/nutrition/q-and-a-are-high-protein-low-carb-diets-effective.html He makes some good general points, but I get the feeling he didn't read the study very closely. The folks who ran the study used doubly labeled water & accounted for the water effect he was referring to.
Dr. Ludwig's response to Hirsch's comments: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/science/diet-study-authors-reply-1-letter.html0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions