A calorie is not a calorie

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!

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.html

Thanks, VorJoshigan! That's the article I was remembering.

I agree that it appears Hirsh was too quick to dismiss the study. And I was too quick to quote something I vaguely remembered.

Dr. Hirsch attributes the 300-calorie difference in energy expenditure among diets in our study to changes in body water. However, we measured calorie expenditure using two state-of-the-art methods after fluid shifts had stabilized, and our analytic methods would not be affected by changes in lean body mass. Ultimately, controlled feeding studies of at least 6 to 12 months duration will be needed to answer this fundamental question in nutrition.

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.

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

This one's actually kind of easy, particularly with good fats/bad fats. Just a quick example. It's not exactly what you are saying, but it does illustrate that fewer calories than the mentioned 300 could make "significant" improvements in health.

Coconut oil vs. soybean oil. Difference was from 30 mL/day of coconut oil vs. soybean oil (about 250 calories). Coconut oil supplementation for 2 weeks raised HDL, improved LDL/HDL ratio and the women lost more weight from their waist in the coconut oil group.



Lipids. 2009 Jul;44(7):593-601. Epub 2009 May 13.
Effects of dietary coconut oil on the biochemical and anthropometric profiles of women presenting abdominal obesity.

PurpleEpiphany

I always figure that yes, as long as you're operating on a deficit you can lose weight. However, there are a couple of problems with that. 1. Adequate nutrition and 2. Blood sugar

In other words...yes, I could lose weight on an all-twinkie (ew) diet if I ate few enough of them. I would possibly die of some horrible vitamin or mineral deficiency, but I could do it. The other side is that it would be really, really tough because something so packed full of processed sugar makes your blood sugar spike and then drop, which makes you really hungry, so I would be miserable as well.

It all comes back to your real motivation: Are you just trying to get skinny, or are you trying to get healthy?

MoreBean13

Before someone comes and bombs this thread with references to the Twinkie Diet guy (because I'm psychic)- I want to preemptively point out that that guy supplemented the twinkies with protein shakes and some vitamin pills, and canned spinach maybe? I'm not 100% positive on the spinach, but there was some veg. Just throwing it out there.

Long_and_Lean

Before someone comes and bombs this thread with references to the Twinkie Diet guy (because I'm psychic)- I want to preemptively point out that that guy supplemented the twinkies with protein shakes and some vitamin pills, and canned spinach maybe? I'm not 100% positive on the spinach, but there was some veg. Just throwing it out there.

Someone actually did that? My earlier reference to twinkies was purely coincidental.

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 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

This one's actually kind of easy, particularly with good fats/bad fats. Just a quick example. It's not exactly what you are saying, but it does illustrate that fewer calories than the mentioned 300 could make "significant" improvements in health.

Coconut oil vs. soybean oil. Difference was from 30 mL/day of coconut oil vs. soybean oil (about 250 calories). Coconut oil supplementation for 2 weeks raised HDL, improved LDL/HDL ratio and the women lost more weight from their waist in the coconut oil group.



Lipids. 2009 Jul;44(7):593-601. Epub 2009 May 13.
Effects of dietary coconut oil on the biochemical and anthropometric profiles of women presenting abdominal obesity.

I don't see how this is relevant. I'm not saying this to be a jerk, I just don't get how this has anything to do with the claim that the inclusion of a small portion of discretionary calories is detrimental to an otherwise nutrient rich diet.

marijasmin

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

Same weight (1 lb) but muscle is denser than fat: just as feathers are more volume than bricks. I would rather have 10 lbs muscle than 10 of fat.

This site is about fitness ( myfitnesspal) not weight loss or fat loss. How could a body build muscle on twinkies? It needs essential amino acids to reshape. Exercised Muscle also burns more calories than metabolically less active fat deposit. The body needs good nutrition to be fit and healthy.

If the body were a calorimeter then a calorie would be a calorie but it isn't, macronutrients are metabolised in different ways under different circumstances. It is a question of optimisation of usage. The body isn't a calorimeter , for example swimmers who work out in cold water in Alaska burn more calories than the same swimmer in the warm Mediterranean. Different effects on metabolism by different circumstances.

Just because a study on sedentary army cadets who eat coconut says that those cadets burn more fat than when they eat olive oil doesn't mean that conclusion will necessarily apply to 80 year old marathon runners or 20 year old pregnant weight lifters. Correlation is not causation. The monitoring tools available on this site allow each of us to conduct studies on our individual bodies. We can then monitor adjust and optimise diet and exercise to achieve the results any particular individual wants.

Could there be somebody losing weight on twinkies? Of course but why would any one on this site want to do that and would it apply to someone else?

taylor5877

I don't see how this is relevant. I'm not saying this to be a jerk, I just don't get how this has anything to do with the claim that the inclusion of a small portion of discretionary calories is detrimental to an otherwise nutrient rich diet.

The only thing different in that study's groups was 250 calories of soybean oil and 250 calories of coconut oil.

So that 250 calories is the discretionary calories we are talking about. The group eating the "good fat" was able to raise their HDL, lower their LDL/HDL ratio, which are both desirable health outcomes. This is after just 2 weeks.

Again, just one example, but it shows that even the discretionary calories can make a difference in your overall health.

I'm sure there are better/longer studies to better illustrate this as well, but it's what I found quickly.

Long_and_Lean

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

Same weight (1 lb) but muscle is denser than fat: just as feathers are more volume than bricks. I would rather have 10 lbs muscle than 10 of fat.

Someone needs to recalibrate their sarcasm meter.

MoreBean13

Before someone comes and bombs this thread with references to the Twinkie Diet guy (because I'm psychic)- I want to preemptively point out that that guy supplemented the twinkies with protein shakes and some vitamin pills, and canned spinach maybe? I'm not 100% positive on the spinach, but there was some veg. Just throwing it out there.

Someone actually did that? My earlier reference to twinkies was purely coincidental.

LOL- yes. And it's pretty much always brought up in "a calorie is a calorie" threads to prove.....something...

ShannonMpls

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 bookmarked that article awhile back specifically to hang onto his response to this JAMA study. Here you go:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/nutrition/q-and-a-are-high-protein-low-carb-diets-effective.html

treetop57

Thanks, Shannon. You planned ahead better than me!

Helloitsdan

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

Wizardry

LOL Beat me to it!!!!!