Not All Calories Are The Same, New Research Finds
Options
Replies
-
Rozieq, I agree with you completely. Although I must admit, I like to lurk around on MFP though to watch all of these different opinions fly around - it's often very entertaining how serious people are about this stuff. And it's quite easy to get people in a tizzy if you ask enough questions :-)0
-
Different macros have different thermic effects which, when manipulated to a rather large amount, can impact energy output. Protein is better preservative of LBM and muscle is more metabolically active than fat. Dietary fat can effect hormones. These are all reasons (and there are others) why people who know what they're doing, will often recommend macro changes in addition to total energy changes.
All of this is correct.
However, I think the principal bonus of trying different macro splits is the effect it has on the individuals ability to deal with hunger, both physiologically and psychologically, as well as certain individuals food intolerances.
Part of successful dieting is unshakeable belief that it will work (like deep man) which makes the whole process easier which makes it more likely that people will find themselves consistently in a calorie deficit.
The advice "find what works for you" is really good until some joker then tries to make it a bigger concept then it actually is...0 -
Senior author Dr David S Ludwig (New Balance Foundation, Obesity Prevention Center) told heartwire : "Extreme restriction of fat or carbs can have bad effects. The best long-term approach will be to avoid restriction of any major nutrient--either fat or carbohydrate--and instead focus on the quality of nutrients. This is not to say that the number of calories isn't important, but it's now saying we should also pay attention to the quality of those calories. So the argument that the food industry likes to make--that all foods can be part of a healthful diet as long as you watch calories--is really misleading at best.
"Relatively unprocessed, low-glycemic-index foods are best, things that our grandmother would recognize. Choose relatively unprocessed foods whenever you can and cut back on white bread, white rice, potato products, prepared breakfast cereals, and, of course, concentrated sugars."
"The argument that the food industry likes to make--that all foods can be part of a healthful diet as long as you watch calories--is really misleading at best."
About damn time. This is what anyone who has read Michael Pollan already knows. Yes, you can have refined products sometimes and be healthy, but the notion that you can just eat a diet of processed foods because low calories is what you need for weight loss and weight loss is the only thing that matters is complete rubbish, to borrow a term from my friends across the pond. Processed foods should be the exception, not the norm.
You HEALTH is the most important thing, no matter what you weigh. Crap processed "food" is not going to get you healthy. .0 -
Ok, this made me giggle. :laugh:0 -
can someone summarize this? too many words^^0
-
can someone summarize this? too many words^^
The quality of calories is as important as the amount of calories.
ETA: that's the jist of the opening post...0 -
Senior author Dr David S Ludwig (New Balance Foundation, Obesity Prevention Center) told heartwire : "Extreme restriction of fat or carbs can have bad effects. The best long-term approach will be to avoid restriction of any major nutrient--either fat or carbohydrate--and instead focus on the quality of nutrients. This is not to say that the number of calories isn't important, but it's now saying we should also pay attention to the quality of those calories. So the argument that the food industry likes to make--that all foods can be part of a healthful diet as long as you watch calories--is really misleading at best.
"Relatively unprocessed, low-glycemic-index foods are best, things that our grandmother would recognize. Choose relatively unprocessed foods whenever you can and cut back on white bread, white rice, potato products, prepared breakfast cereals, and, of course, concentrated sugars."
"The argument that the food industry likes to make--that all foods can be part of a healthful diet as long as you watch calories--is really misleading at best."
About damn time. This is what anyone who has read Michael Pollan already knows. Yes, you can have refined products sometimes and be healthy, but the notion that you can just eat a diet of processed foods because low calories is what you need for weight loss and weight loss is the only thing that matters is complete rubbish, to borrow a term from my friends across the pond. Processed foods should be the exception, not the norm.
You HEALTH is the most important thing, no matter what you weigh. Crap processed "food" is not going to get you healthy. .
After a good deal of weight loss, do blood markers of health generally improve or get worse, regardless of what foods that were used to create the caloric deficit to lose the weight?0 -
Three big points to make on this study
1. As indicated in a post above, some of the persons in this study had very different results. Given that and the sample size was very very small, caution should be used in assuming the actual results apply to you and/or will apply to your goals if you change eating habits to conform to the study results.
2. The difference in diets accounted for no more than 350 cal difference. Go for a quick walk/run for an hour and almost every person on this board will burn more than that -- we are talking about a very small difference.
3. Looking into the study, what really standouts is that it is still based upon the simply idea that weight gain/loss/maintenance is still (no matter what diet) all about the total calories burned vs. consumed. So if you can maintain a long-term deficit/maintenance by a combination of a contraindicated diet and exercise, but you can't using one of the apparently indicated diets, then the most important thing is to stick to what you can maintain over the long haul.
And frankly, when a trainer, nutritionist or doctor tells you it is all about calories in vs. calories out in order to get to or maintain a healthy weight and fitness level -- this is what they really mean -- i.e. it is more important to achieve and maintain a healthy weight and fitness level, regardless of diet, than to maintain any particular diet (excluding of course crazy diets that exclude an entire food group etc.).0 -
Did Attia address this point at all? Quoted from article:Peter Attia wrote a great blog post on that study. Here's a little of what he had to say:
"A few things stand out from these results:
1. The group consuming a very low carbohydrate diet had a higher REE and TEE than the low GI group, which had a higher REE and TEE than the low fat group. In other words, the fewer carbohydrates in the diet, the higher the resting and overall expenditure. This is actually the sine qua non of the alternative hypothesis: something beyond the actual number of calories is playing a role in how the body expends energy.
2. As expected, given that each subject was starting from a weight-reduced state, the REE was lower for each group, relative to their baseline. REE is highly (though clearly not entirely) dependent on body mass.
3. There is enormous variation between subjects by diet type. For example, at least one subject saw a dramatic increase in TEE on the low GI diet versus the other two, while another saw the greatest TEE on the low fat diet. This speaks to a theme I iterate on this blog: be willing to self-experiment until you find what works for you. "
http://eatingacademy.com/books-and-articles/good-science-bad-interpretation
"With the low-carb diet, the researchers observed increases in CRP, a measure of chronic inflammation, and 24-hour cortisol, the key stress hormone, "suggesting that any initial advantages were eroded over time by these biological stressors," Ludwig notes."0 -
Bump0
-
it will always be true that just for weight loss, only a caloric deficit is required.
and new comers are bombarded with this fact constantly.
the issue for me is that many seem to take this fact and focus only on that because it is relatively simple to achieve without having to worry about macro nutrient ratios
for optimal weight loss AND over all health, IMO, macro nutrient ratios should be equally emphasized.
advocating a "eat whatever you want but just stay in a caloric deficit" mentality seems irresponsible given the way many beginners here blindly take that advice and run with it0 -
Different macros have different thermic effects which, when manipulated to a rather large amount, can impact energy output. Protein is better preservative of LBM and muscle is more metabolically active than fat. Dietary fat can effect hormones. These are all reasons (and there are others) why people who know what they're doing, will often recommend macro changes in addition to total energy changes.
All of this is correct.
However, I think the principal bonus of trying different macro splits is the effect it has on the individuals ability to deal with hunger, both physiologically and psychologically, as well as certain individuals food intolerances.
Part of successful dieting is unshakeable belief that it will work (like deep man) which makes the whole process easier which makes it more likely that people will find themselves consistently in a calorie deficit.
The advice "find what works for you" is really good until some joker then tries to make it a bigger concept then it actually is...
^ Absolutely.0 -
Different macros have different thermic effects which, when manipulated to a rather large amount, can impact energy output. Protein is better preservative of LBM and muscle is more metabolically active than fat. Dietary fat can effect hormones. These are all reasons (and there are others) why people who know what they're doing, will often recommend macro changes in addition to total energy changes.
Ok, I understand what you are saying.
So do you feel one pay attention to macros in addition to caloric deficit in order to lose weight?
I think that generally speaking, ignoring macronutrients and ignoring micronutrients is foolish.
However, despite that opinion, weight loss is still driven by energy balance.
If I were to make a sweeping generalization that isn't perfect:
Calories ---> Change in weight.
Macronutrients ----> Change in body composition
Micronutrients ----> Change in health.
There is a little overlap in the above but again, it's a very broad statement.0 -
the issue for me is that many seem to take this fact and focus only on that because it is relatively simple to achieve without having to worry about macro nutrient ratios
But the power is in its simplicity.
I agree with a lot of what you say but I think the best thing an overweight / obese person can do for their health, without any shadow of a doubt, is to lose weight however they can. If they do that by eating nothing but McDonalds or whatever then so be it.
Hopefully people then transition to a more nutritious diet which also sees them in deficit / maintenance (it is astonishing that Western Societies are amongst the most overweight in the world but at the same time malnourished...) However, I think many, many people need to see some success initially to boos their confidence before they then make the leap to overall health as well.0 -
I believe in MED(Minimum effective dose). Even though that's not really what they're talking about here, it's all pretty much the same thing. These diets where you restrict one macro over the other will work for a while, because you're shocking your body. In the end moderation is key. I definatley see a difference with what I eat. Candy bars don't react with my body the same way as whole foods do.0
-
Senior author Dr David S Ludwig (New Balance Foundation, Obesity Prevention Center) told heartwire : "Extreme restriction of fat or carbs can have bad effects. The best long-term approach will be to avoid restriction of any major nutrient--either fat or carbohydrate--and instead focus on the quality of nutrients. This is not to say that the number of calories isn't important, but it's now saying we should also pay attention to the quality of those calories. So the argument that the food industry likes to make--that all foods can be part of a healthful diet as long as you watch calories--is really misleading at best.
"Relatively unprocessed, low-glycemic-index foods are best, things that our grandmother would recognize. Choose relatively unprocessed foods whenever you can and cut back on white bread, white rice, potato products, prepared breakfast cereals, and, of course, concentrated sugars."
"The argument that the food industry likes to make--that all foods can be part of a healthful diet as long as you watch calories--is really misleading at best."
About damn time. This is what anyone who has read Michael Pollan already knows. Yes, you can have refined products sometimes and be healthy, but the notion that you can just eat a diet of processed foods because low calories is what you need for weight loss and weight loss is the only thing that matters is complete rubbish, to borrow a term from my friends across the pond. Processed foods should be the exception, not the norm.
You HEALTH is the most important thing, no matter what you weigh. Crap processed "food" is not going to get you healthy. .
So who have you ever seen argue that "you can just eat a diet of processed foods because low calories is what you need for weight loss and weight loss is the only thing that matters"? I haven't seen this argued. Although as Acg67 asks above, what happens to blood markers of health if this was followed?
Over and over I have seen the recommendation to eat mostly nutrient dense food most of the time but to follow a rigid standard on this ALL the time is not only not nessesary but can be self defeating. Nutrient dense foods are critical for health and I don't think I've ever heard this disputed.
There is a whole middle ground between eating all processed crap and eating a diet of only nutrient dense foods 100% of the time. Many advocate an 80% "nutrient dense"/ 20% "whatever you want" ratio assuming hitting caloris and macro targets.0 -
Several studies came out at the same time supporting this. An excellent fast read summarizing decades of this research is called Why We Get Fat. http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307949435
I found it helpful, especially as combined with MFP. It recommends low glycemic aiming for 40% carbs for long term weight loss and maintenance. He has a longer more technical book too. (Taubes is the NY Times science correspondent.)0 -
it will always be true that just for weight loss, only a caloric deficit is required.
and new comers are bombarded with this fact constantly.
the issue for me is that many seem to take this fact and focus only on that because it is relatively simple to achieve without having to worry about macro nutrient ratios
for optimal weight loss AND over all health, IMO, macro nutrient ratios should be equally emphasized.
advocating a "eat whatever you want but just stay in a caloric deficit" mentality seems irresponsible given the way many beginners here blindly take that advice and run with it
Have you seen that advocated a lot here? I ask because I haven't.
BTW, I am solidly in the camp that a calorie deficit, good macronutrient goals and mostly nutrient dense foods are the pillars of the nutritional side of things.0 -
it will always be true that just for weight loss, only a caloric deficit is required.
and new comers are bombarded with this fact constantly.
the issue for me is that many seem to take this fact and focus only on that because it is relatively simple to achieve without having to worry about macro nutrient ratios
for optimal weight loss AND over all health, IMO, macro nutrient ratios should be equally emphasized.
advocating a "eat whatever you want but just stay in a caloric deficit" mentality seems irresponsible given the way many beginners here blindly take that advice and run with it
Have you seen that advocated a lot here? I ask because I haven't.
yes...constantly and every single day0 -
it will always be true that just for weight loss, only a caloric deficit is required.
and new comers are bombarded with this fact constantly.
the issue for me is that many seem to take this fact and focus only on that because it is relatively simple to achieve without having to worry about macro nutrient ratios
for optimal weight loss AND over all health, IMO, macro nutrient ratios should be equally emphasized.
advocating a "eat whatever you want but just stay in a caloric deficit" mentality seems irresponsible given the way many beginners here blindly take that advice and run with it
Have you seen that advocated a lot here? I ask because I haven't.
yes...constantly and every single day
I guess we follow different threads.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions