Not All Calories Are The Same, New Research Finds
Replies
-
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.)
LolTaubes0 -
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.
This 100%. When I first started at 300 pounds, my biggest change was instead of ordering a big mac meal, I would order a regular hamburger and fries. Then, I wanted more food for my calories, I cooked at home and added vegetables to my meals. And so on. In the beginning, the less I had to focus on, the more I was apt to stick with it.0 -
Interesting article. I guess this flies in the face of the people who insist that weight loss is simply a matter of calories in/calories out alone. For example Lyle McDonald - someone linked his discussion here: https://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/715411-you-are-not-different. Also this might be a bit upsetting to those who swear by ketogenic diets on the long-term.
To be fair, I'm so sick and tired of this back and forth bro science about "eat less, exercise more" vs "you need to do 20/30/40 bla bla bla" ratios. It was nice that someone here posted an actual empirical study which albeit small, sheds a little light on the subject.
I'vealways been a proponent of doing what works for the individual. And despite what many people think, that is different for everyone. If it wasn't, this would be a lot easier for most of us.0 -
I came here to have an intelligent discussion, but the text is in bold. I can't argue with that.0
-
Always good to read new articles - for me personally I keep it simple - eat healthy and exercise, do some strength training. Healthy eating is diff for diff people, for me I have lots of protein and fiber and I watch my acid reflux-trigger foods. Processed sugar is addictive for me so I have to be careful with that.
The above helped me both lose weight and gain some strength in the process. Once I start getting too restrictive it usually ends up in eating something or doing something equally unhealthy.
Sustainability is important. Even if you can lose by avoiding all of 1 thing, or only eating 1 thing, how long can you keep it up anyway?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?
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
Thanks though :-)0 -
bump for later0
-
So, uh, eat a sensible diet with mostly whole foods. Sounds right.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.
If, for beginners, eating anything but staying within their calorie allotment keeps them on track, why wouldn't you advocate it? After a while, they will want to eat more and add more vegetables and lean meat to their diet.
This is how I lost my first 40 pounds.0 -
So, what I take away is:
Emphasis on proteins.
High glycemic index carbs.
Moderate fats.0 -
Bump. My brain needs coffee first.0
-
Whole, natural, unprocessed foods are the way to go. Stop the whole "diet" nonsense.0
-
Three big points to make on this study
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.
For a very athletic person who is maintaining on 3000 cals per day, 350 might not be a whole lot, but this would mean for the average female who is struggling on 1200 cals per day to try to lose 1 pound per week, they can theoretically lose the same amount by eating 1550 cals per day, if they choose the right foods. Or that extra 350 cals burned in a day would equate to an extra 3/4 pound loss per week. That really adds up.
What might be a simple 1 hour run a day for you, may be next to impossible for many other people. If you could get the same calorie burn simply by changing the type of foods you eat, many people would want to know that.
And to the OP, thanks for posting this. It is good to see some scientific tests results to reinforce the way I am eating already.0 -
So, what I take away is:
Emphasis on proteins.
High glycemic index carbs.
Moderate fats.
That would actually be LOW glycemic index carbs, but higher protein and moderate fats are correct.
ETA- Higher fiber carbs makes them lower glycemic. Meaning the carbs break down into sugar more slowly, preventing large spikes in Blood Sugar and large insulin releases.0 -
Whole, natural, unprocessed foods are the way to go. Stop the whole "diet" nonsense.
You can stilbecome overweight eating those foods if you eat too much. In order to lose weight, you HAVE TO diet. It's just the way it goes. You may continue once you've reached goal to eat the healthy foods and exercise (I think it becomes a habit and way-of-life for many), but you still have to diet to get to that goal.0 -
Bump for later0
-
Bump0
-
The low GI diet that Dr. Ludwig concluded was the best for overall health was actually 20% protein, 40% fat and 40% carbs. Not sure where the emphasis on protein is coming from, even the diet that performed the best in the study was only 30% protein.
Graph by Peter Attia
http://eatingacademy.com/books-and-articles/good-science-bad-interpretation0 -
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
YES!!! BE YOUR OWN SCIENTIST!!! N=1 AND IT ALWAYS AND THAT IS THE ONE THING THAT WON'T CHANGE.
IMO, I don't believe in calories in, calories out because it's not how the human body treats food - we are made of food and what we eat is more important than how much. Because of good chunk of the fat (fatty acids) and protein (amino acids) doesn't get used as energy. A calorie is a unit of energy and that's it - figured out by burning food - literally. Those fatty and amino acids go towards cellular repair and maintenance, not energy.
And if you have any diabetes in your family, even the healthiest carbs will eventually hurt you. I did the SAD with healthy whole grains and lots of fruit. I dropped some weight but I still suffer from Reactive Hypoglycemia (aka prediabetes). I'm 110lbs and I still suffer from this.
And if you don't have diabetes in your family then a lifetime of the SAD and it's "healthy" whole grains" as the staple will just ensure you fight your weight as you age, dealing with all the "normal" aspects of aging like arthritis (inflammation), cholesterol problems (inflammation), hypertentsion, etc.
Funny. I'm almost 42 years old and while everyone around me deteriorating I'm getting healthier. But then I don't follow the SAD. My body runs best at about 5%-10% carbs. When I keep them around there I don't have to worry about calories or fat. In fact, I have to make sure I eat plenty of fat because my body burns through it like crazy. And I don't exercise a lot.
NOTE: Judging by some of the pics on here I won't be back to this thread. I'm sure I will be attacked and insulted since I don't believe the conventional wisdom. So if anyone is interested in hearing more please PM me.0 -
So, what I take away is:
Emphasis on proteins.
High glycemic index carbs.
Moderate fats.
That would actually be LOW glycemic index carbs, but higher protein and moderate fats are correct.
ETA- Higher fiber carbs makes them lower glycemic. Meaning the carbs break down into sugar more slowly, preventing large spikes in Blood Sugar and large insulin releases.
Yep. Thanks for the catch.0 -
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
YES!!! BE YOUR OWN SCIENTIST!!! N=1 AND IT ALWAYS AND THAT IS THE ONE THING THAT WON'T CHANGE.
IMO, I don't believe in calories in, calories out because it's not how the human body treats food - we are made of food and what we eat is more important than how much. Because of good chunk of the fat (fatty acids) and protein (amino acids) doesn't get used as energy. A calorie is a unit of energy and that's it - figured out by burning food - literally. Those fatty and amino acids go towards cellular repair and maintenance, not energy.
And if you have any diabetes in your family, even the healthiest carbs will eventually hurt you. I did the SAD with healthy whole grains and lots of fruit. I dropped some weight but I still suffer from Reactive Hypoglycemia (aka prediabetes). I'm 110lbs and I still suffer from this.
And if you don't have diabetes in your family then a lifetime of the SAD and it's "healthy" whole grains" as the staple will just ensure you fight your weight as you age, dealing with all the "normal" aspects of aging like arthritis (inflammation), cholesterol problems (inflammation), hypertentsion, etc.
Funny. I'm almost 42 years old and while everyone around me deteriorating I'm getting healthier. But then I don't follow the SAD. My body runs best at about 5%-10% carbs. When I keep them around there I don't have to worry about calories or fat. In fact, I have to make sure I eat plenty of fat because my body burns through it like crazy. And I don't exercise a lot.
NOTE: Judging by some of the pics on here I won't be back to this thread. I'm sure I will be attacked and insulted since I don't believe the conventional wisdom. So if anyone is interested in hearing more please PM me.
I am 45 years old and my body works fabulously on a lot more carbs than that.
Plus - cellular repair and maintenance is the use of energy.0 -
NOTE: Judging by some of the pics on here I won't be back to this thread. I'm sure I will be attacked and insulted since I don't believe the conventional wisdom. So if anyone is interested in hearing more please PM me.
Ted and his sheep do not care for you.0 -
The low GI diet that Dr. Ludwig concluded was the best for overall health
No such conclusion was drawn.
If it was, please direct me to it in the original study.0 -
I don't have access to the full study but here's part of an article where Ludwig is quoted:The low GI diet that Dr. Ludwig concluded was the best for overall health
No such conclusion was drawn.
If it was, please direct me to it in the original study.
"The researchers found that compared with the pre-weight loss numbers, the decrease in REE and TEE was greatest in the low-fat diet, followed by the low-glycemic index diet and finally the very low-carbohydrate diet. This means the low-fat diet slowed down metabolism the most. Hormone levels were negatively affected by the low-carbohydrate diet, meaning that inflammation increased and the risk of disease also increased as well.
The overall winner was the low-glycemic diet, which offered both a healthy and an easy way to keep metabolic rates up. To keep a low-glycemic diet, people must eat fiber-rich, natural carbohydrates, proteins and healthy fats, including nuts, avocados or olive oil. Grain products that have a low level of processing are also encouraged, while fruit juice and soda are to be avoided. Sugar can be consumed, but only with a balanced meal and in moderation. Drinking water is encouraged.
"A low-glycemic diet offers a healthy variety without eliminating entire classes of foods - like fat or carbs - so it's naturally more sustainable," Ludwig said in the blog. "This is especially helpful for children, since variety and flexibility make it easier for them to follow."
Ludwig told CTM that since our bodies are used to eating traditional carbohydrates for thousands of years - like steel-cut oats over instant oats - they digest and raise blood sugar levels slower so there isn't a "surge and crash."
"But all of the refined carbs that invaded our diets with the low-fat craze seems to lead to metabolic changes not only making us hungrier, but causing metabolism to fall. And that combination is a recipe for weight gain," Ludwig explained to CTM."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57461950-10391704/low-glycemic-index-diet-may-be-best-at-keeping-off-pounds/0 -
I looked at this study pretty in-depth, the reporting of the study is pretty bad and the writer draws questionable conclusions, but the study itself, while small, is at least decent.
A couple points I remember:
1) This study does not apply to dieting. It applies to maintenence, a fundamentally different process than losing.
2) Protein is not controlled. By now everyone should be aware that to a point a diet high in protein will almost always "outperform" a diet not high in protein. Especially when the dieter is exercising, and super duper expecially when strength training is included as part of that exercise. It is a pretty well established fact that the calorie count used for protein is incorrect for human biology (should be lower).
3) Outliers create the average. If you use mode and not median, the low fat and low GI groups flip.0 -
I don't have access to the full study but here's part of an article where Ludwig is quoted
Fair enough. It wasn't a conclusion of the original study but i guess it can be interpreted that way, especially with selective reporting.
That's why it is always better to read the actual study for yourself with a healthy degree of skepticism.0 -
I would love to see this study taking into account ancestry and family history.
My husband can lose weight on very little protein, doesn't get jittery, he's fine eating tons of carbs. I'm a wreck eating too little protein, I get grumpy and tired. I don't lose weight consistently.
Our family histories are different. His family has been living in cities or on small farms for generations. My family is a bit less far removed from hunter/gatherer type lifestyles. I'm curious if things like that make a difference in our ideal macro's?
I remembered this article and had to look it up again as it sort of relates: http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/pima/obesity/obesity.htm0 -
I would love to see this study taking into account ancestry and family history.
My husband can lose weight on very little protein, doesn't get jittery, he's fine eating tons of carbs. I'm a wreck eating too little protein, I get grumpy and tired. I don't lose weight consistently.
Our family histories are different. His family has been living in cities or on small farms for generations. My family is a bit less far removed from hunter/gatherer type lifestyles. I'm curious if things like that make a difference in our ideal macro's?
I remembered this article and had to look it up again as it sort of relates: http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/pima/obesity/obesity.htm
I would say that whether or not it's related to genetics or history, you shouldn't ignore behavioral or preferential outcomes of macronutrient intake.0 -
I don't have access to the full study but here's part of an article where Ludwig is quoted:The low GI diet that Dr. Ludwig concluded was the best for overall health
No such conclusion was drawn.
If it was, please direct me to it in the original study.
"The researchers found that compared with the pre-weight loss numbers, the decrease in REE and TEE was greatest in the low-fat diet, followed by the low-glycemic index diet and finally the very low-carbohydrate diet. This means the low-fat diet slowed down metabolism the most. Hormone levels were negatively affected by the low-carbohydrate diet, meaning that inflammation increased and the risk of disease also increased as well.
The overall winner was the low-glycemic diet, which offered both a healthy and an easy way to keep metabolic rates up. To keep a low-glycemic diet, people must eat fiber-rich, natural carbohydrates, proteins and healthy fats, including nuts, avocados or olive oil. Grain products that have a low level of processing are also encouraged, while fruit juice and soda are to be avoided. Sugar can be consumed, but only with a balanced meal and in moderation. Drinking water is encouraged.
"A low-glycemic diet offers a healthy variety without eliminating entire classes of foods - like fat or carbs - so it's naturally more sustainable," Ludwig said in the blog. "This is especially helpful for children, since variety and flexibility make it easier for them to follow."
Ludwig told CTM that since our bodies are used to eating traditional carbohydrates for thousands of years - like steel-cut oats over instant oats - they digest and raise blood sugar levels slower so there isn't a "surge and crash."
"But all of the refined carbs that invaded our diets with the low-fat craze seems to lead to metabolic changes not only making us hungrier, but causing metabolism to fall. And that combination is a recipe for weight gain," Ludwig explained to CTM."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57461950-10391704/low-glycemic-index-diet-may-be-best-at-keeping-off-pounds/
The data does not support that though. Like I said, outliers created the results as interpreted. If you used mode of the dataset (the middle value) instead of median (the average value), the conclusion would be that low fat is better than low GI carb; either way the differences between those groups is tiny, given a larger sample size it is hard to believe that there would be a signficant difference.
The conclusion that a low GI carb diet is better from the data in the study is very, very marginal, if not an outright laughable conclusion.0 -
Shouldn't the low fat and low GI diets have performed the same then since they both were made up of 20% protein?2) Protein is not controlled. By now everyone should be aware that to a point a diet high in protein will almost always "outperform" a diet not high in protein. Especially when the dieter is exercising, and super duper expecially when strength training is included as part of that exercise. It is a pretty well established fact that the calorie count used for protein is incorrect for human biology (should be lower).
Also shouldn't the low carb diets TEE have been much less than what was recorded considering protein was only 10% higher?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions