Not All Calories Are The Same, New Research Finds

Merrychrissmith

The study is based on 21 people? Take any 21 open diaries on MFP and do you own study.

Hmmm, not to compelling conclusions based on sample size,






edited for spelling

BogQueen1

I keep wondering when all this debate over all this stuff is going to boil down to people realizing it's common sense. All this garbage aside about low carb/low fat, eat this, don't eat that, timing, intermittent fasting?

Common sense people, just use common sense.

A big plate of leafy greens with tomatoes, red peppers, mushrooms, and other assorted veggies with a couple tablespoons of a flavorful, full fat vinagrette will ALWAYS be healthy, regardless of carb content.

Nearly every food in it's unprocessed state is good for you, I'm not sure what kind of a vendetta Dr. Atkin's had against carrots, maybe he just didn't like them, but none of us got fat from eating too many carrots.

Natural fats are good for you! Take a quick trip back to high school biology and remember your cell memebranes are made up of protein and FAT. We have to consume fats in order for our cells to function properly and in order to process certain vitamins. Olive oil, dairy fat, avocados, nuts and the fat in meats? We need it to survive.

What isn't good for you? Does it come in a box from a factory made from an amalgamation of various chemicals, some of which are unpronounceable? Your body probably doesn't recognize that as food. Does it taste good? Hell yeah it does. Is it good for you? No. The thing that everyone ignores is that when you eat these frankenfoods, you aren't getting the vitamins and minerals your body requires. Sure, you can supplement, but I really believe your body takes a supplement, goes wtf, and gets rid of most of it. That's why you pee most of it out. Plus, if you've ever read the book 'Eat your Colors' there's other chemicals in fruits and vegetables (they dubbed them phytonutrients) that just don't process at all. You can't store them in a pill and take a pill a day. They are only found in healthful, living food. We don't understand every single thing our body needs, so why do we think when we strip everything out of a plant, and just add back what we thought we lost, we are actually getting what we need?

Think back to when you were a kid (this only applies to adults over a certain age I believe). What was the lunch your mom packed for you? If she was like my mom, you got a PBJ (probably on wheat bread), an apple, maybe a cookie, and milk to drink. Did you get a franken food Lunchable with a sugar filled capri sun, and a pure sugar air head treat for dessert? I sure didn't.

I guess the thing that frustrates me most about dieting is that it should be SIMPLE. We have to eat to live, it's one of our most basic processes. That people have taken that basic need and turned it into a multi billion dollar industry kind of sickens me. Most diets don't 'work'. If they did? People would be on them, get what they needed and be done, and the company would get no more money. Instead they make you dependent on them with tricks, or preportioned food, or whatever it is about their products that you need to continue to pay them money to survive. And don't even get me started on the healthcare industry and the fortunes they make off of our fat filled woe's. Conspiracy theorist I am not, but it doesn't seem like American's getting healthy is in the interests of too many corporations.

Idk, I suppose the principals that have worked best for me losing weight have been: Volumize with vegetables (probably the single most important concept I have learned from any program), eat unprocessed as much as humanly possible, avoid fast food at least 90% of the time, move as much as you can, and consume protein and fiber with every meal. Drink lots of water. Avoid soda as it's the devil in any form.

Simple. Common sense. No trickery. Do I follow it as best I should? No. I'm busy. It's hard to cook meals all the time. But when I do manage to make those choices correctly, I feel better, I lose weight and I have more energy. When I don't, it's the exact opposite.

waldo56

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).

Shouldn't the low fat and low GI diets have performed the same then since they both were made up of 20% protein?

Also shouldn't the low carb diets TEE have been much less than what was recorded considering protein was only 10% higher?

Protein was 50% higher.

The lack of a lead in phase leaves the results for the low carb diet questionable. The study lacks any discussion on how they dealt with the several pounds of water loss that accompany the start of a low carb diet, if they normalized it at all for the metabolism calculations, and if they did how they did it. Water locked up in glycogen appears via any composition measurement to be lean mass.

And the low fat and low GI diets did perform almost exactly the same. The difference is primairly an outlier. If you average them the low GI diet performed slightly better. If you instead use the middle value, the low fat diet did slightly better. Given the small sample size, the differences were insignificant enough that conclusions shoul dnot have been drawn.

onyxgirl17

here we go again...

WendyTerry420

High protein diets have always been shown to be your best route because it does have a higher TEF. That said, why is "eat less, move more" bro science? Isn't that what every single person who loses weight does regardless of macronutriant ratios?

That's what I thought. But there are threads going around on MFP where people begin arguing about "eat more and you will lose weight" vs "it's just cals in vs cals out", then there's the less sodium, more protein, etc, etc. I think I've read so many different takes on how weight loss should happen on this site it's incredible.

Calories in-Calories Out is working wonderfully for me. Forty-four pounds in 19 weeks and body fat percentage is down by twelve percent.

AlabasterVerve

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).

Shouldn't the low fat and low GI diets have performed the same then since they both were made up of 20% protein?

Also shouldn't the low carb diets TEE have been much less than what was recorded considering protein was only 10% higher?

Protein was 50% higher.

The lack of a lead in phase leaves the results for the low carb diet questionable. The study lacks any discussion on how they dealt with the several pounds of water loss that accompany the start of a low carb diet, if they normalized it at all for the metabolism calculations, and if they did how they did it. Water locked up in glycogen appears via any composition measurement to be lean mass.

And the low fat and low GI diets did perform almost exactly the same. The difference is primairly an outlier. If you average them the low GI diet performed slightly better. If you instead use the middle value, the low fat diet did slightly better. Given the small sample size, the differences were insignificant enough that conclusions shoul dnot have been drawn.

Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree over the data. As for the water they said they accounted for that, dunno:

To the Editor:

Re “In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science” (July 10): Dr. Jules Hirsch states that to lose body fat, one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both, and we agree. Our findings do not conflict with any basic law of physics. Rather, we show that reducing consumption of processed carbohydrate may boost metabolism after weight loss, and this effect might make weight control easier over the long term.

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. David Ludwig, M.D.

Cara Ebbeling

Boston

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/science/diet-study-authors-reply-1-letter.html?_r=0

Acg67

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).

Shouldn't the low fat and low GI diets have performed the same then since they both were made up of 20% protein?

Also shouldn't the low carb diets TEE have been much less than what was recorded considering protein was only 10% higher?

Protein was 50% higher.

The lack of a lead in phase leaves the results for the low carb diet questionable. The study lacks any discussion on how they dealt with the several pounds of water loss that accompany the start of a low carb diet, if they normalized it at all for the metabolism calculations, and if they did how they did it. Water locked up in glycogen appears via any composition measurement to be lean mass.

And the low fat and low GI diets did perform almost exactly the same. The difference is primairly an outlier. If you average them the low GI diet performed slightly better. If you instead use the middle value, the low fat diet did slightly better. Given the small sample size, the differences were insignificant enough that conclusions shoul dnot have been drawn.

Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree over the data. As for the water they said they accounted for that, dunno:

To the Editor:

Re “In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science” (July 10): Dr. Jules Hirsch states that to lose body fat, one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both, and we agree. Our findings do not conflict with any basic law of physics. Rather, we show that reducing consumption of processed carbohydrate may boost metabolism after weight loss, and this effect might make weight control easier over the long term.

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. David Ludwig, M.D.

Cara Ebbeling

Boston

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/science/diet-study-authors-reply-1-letter.html?_r=0

http://anthonycolpo.com/finally-a-study-that-proves-a-low-carb-metabolic-advantage-yeah-right/

Kaiukas

Calories in-Calories Out is working wonderfully for me. Forty-four pounds in 19 weeks and body fat percentage is down by twelve percent.

Well done!

But please take into consideration that the study addresses the metabolic changes AFTER the weight loss. The statistics on regaining the weight are rather daunting and hence it pays to take evidence-based suggestions rather seriously.

mmapags

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).

Shouldn't the low fat and low GI diets have performed the same then since they both were made up of 20% protein?

Also shouldn't the low carb diets TEE have been much less than what was recorded considering protein was only 10% higher?

Protein was 50% higher.

The lack of a lead in phase leaves the results for the low carb diet questionable. The study lacks any discussion on how they dealt with the several pounds of water loss that accompany the start of a low carb diet, if they normalized it at all for the metabolism calculations, and if they did how they did it. Water locked up in glycogen appears via any composition measurement to be lean mass.

And the low fat and low GI diets did perform almost exactly the same. The difference is primairly an outlier. If you average them the low GI diet performed slightly better. If you instead use the middle value, the low fat diet did slightly better. Given the small sample size, the differences were insignificant enough that conclusions shoul dnot have been drawn.

Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree over the data. As for the water they said they accounted for that, dunno:

To the Editor:

Re “In Dieting, Magic Isn’t a Substitute for Science” (July 10): Dr. Jules Hirsch states that to lose body fat, one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both, and we agree. Our findings do not conflict with any basic law of physics. Rather, we show that reducing consumption of processed carbohydrate may boost metabolism after weight loss, and this effect might make weight control easier over the long term.

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. David Ludwig, M.D.

Cara Ebbeling

Boston

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/science/diet-study-authors-reply-1-letter.html?_r=0

Which part of what he said regarding the data are you disagreeing with? If it's the increase in protein, the pie charts you provided are very clear that the increase in protien intake went from 20% to 30%. That's 10% of total diet increase but a 50% increase from the amount of protein consumed on the 2 that had 20% protein.

WendyTerry420

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.

Here's the deal:

If you ignore macronutrients and just focus on calories, you will likely be hungry and over eat. But at the same time, some people can be satisfied with one ratio of macros while others might be hungry all the time with that same ratio.

WendyTerry420

Calories in-Calories Out is working wonderfully for me. Forty-four pounds in 19 weeks and body fat percentage is down by twelve percent.

Well done!

But please take into consideration that the study addresses the metabolic changes AFTER the weight loss. The statistics on regaining the weight are rather daunting and hence it pays to take evidence-based suggestions rather seriously.

I didn't read the whole thing. Too long. :laugh:

But I do believe that some people just make it more complicated than it needs to be, and some people try to lose too much too fast, which also makes it harder in the long run.