A Calorie is a Calorie?

april1445

I don't mean for this to sound like a copout, but everyone is different. I do not believe we need a high protein diet to be healthy. I believe that highly processed foods (which often = carbs) are not healthy for our bodies. I believe that insulin spikes are bad for our health, but balanced eating takes care of that. Personally, if I let myself, I would eat toast at every meal, so I have to limit my bread. I've learned that I don't like food that turns to paste in my mouth (like white bread), so that's retraining. Do some research from someone who isn't trying to sell you something (like the high protein guys), and see what you honestly believe.

MsPudding

A calorie is a calorie as it's a unit of measure however your body does not treat all food groups the same and spends different amounts of energy (the Termic Effect) digesting different types of food...which is why I think that low-carbers encourage higher protein consumption.

So, let's take a bunch of foods all of the same calorific value:

100 calories of Protein - approx 30 calories are burned digesting it
100 calories of Fat - approximately 3 calories are burned digesting it
100 calories of Complex Carbs - approximately 20 calories are burned digesting it
100 calories of Refined Carbs/Sugars - approximately 2-3 calories are burned digesting it

So whilst all the foods above are 100 calories, the body treats them differently and as you can see you use more calories digesting Protein than you do anything else. Your body has to work least hardest digesting fats and simple carbs.

Therefore if you have a 2,000 calorie a day diet that is high in refined carbs, fats and sugars (which a lot of junk food is) you will burn fewer calories digesting it than if you have a diet high in protein and complex carbs.

squatsandlipgloss

And eating is a pleasure. Or is supposed to be, that's why we have all those nice chemicals buzzing around after eating.

The key to being as healthy as possible is to balance the two. To get more bang for your buck at the same time as making you content with what you have eaten.


I lost pounds last week. My intake was atrocious, but I lost. I'm willing to bet that I didn't improve my health in the process, though. And I enjoyed my week very much. This week will hopefully be healthier. It's the combination of the two that keeps me sane.

This is what I'm aiming for!!

squatsandlipgloss

100 calories of Protein - approx 30 calories are burned digesting it
100 calories of Fat - approximately 3 calories are burned digesting it
100 calories of Complex Carbs - approximately 20 calories are burned digesting it
100 calories of Refined Carbs/Sugars - approximately 2-3 calories are burned digesting it

So whilst all the foods above are 100 calories, the body treats them differently and as you can see you use more calories digesting Protein than you do anything else. Your body has to work least hardest digesting fats and simple carbs.

Therefore if you have a 2,000 calorie a day diet that is high in refined carbs, fats and sugars (which a lot of junk food is) you will burn fewer calories digesting it than if you have a diet high in protein and complex carbs.

I didn't know this. Very interesting!

squatsandlipgloss

100 calories of Protein - approx 30 calories are burned digesting it
100 calories of Fat - approximately 3 calories are burned digesting it
100 calories of Complex Carbs - approximately 20 calories are burned digesting it
100 calories of Refined Carbs/Sugars - approximately 2-3 calories are burned digesting it

So whilst all the foods above are 100 calories, the body treats them differently and as you can see you use more calories digesting Protein than you do anything else. Your body has to work least hardest digesting fats and simple carbs.

Therefore if you have a 2,000 calorie a day diet that is high in refined carbs, fats and sugars (which a lot of junk food is) you will burn fewer calories digesting it than if you have a diet high in protein and complex carbs.

I didn't know this. Very interesting!

It's called TEF(Thermogenic Effects Of FOod)

it doesn't make much of a difference.

Think of this. I you eat more protein to burn more calories. For example eating 100 calories of protein burns 30 calories. You're better of not eating the 100 calories in the first place.

I dont think thats what she is saying, though.You wouldn't eat more protein to burn more calories than you would consume (would t that be awesome?) but you would (or wouldn't, whatever) choose protein over simple carbs if you had to eat 100 cals anyways because it burns more calories.

MsPudding

I dont think thats what she is saying, though.You wouldn't eat more protein to burn more calories than you would consume (would t that be awesome?) but you would (or wouldn't, whatever) choose protein over simple carbs if you had to eat 100 cals anyways because it burns more calories.

Yup - I'm saying that if Person 1 does a 1,500 calorie a day diet that's got a lot of protein/complex carbs in it and Person 2 does a 1,500 calorie a day diet that's got a lot of refined carbs/fats/sugars in it, Person 1 has a head start since more of their 1,500 calories is being burned off simply through digestion than Person 2.

But when you think about it - the foods which have the higher Thermic Effect are the foods that you're told to eat more of in a healthy diet - protein and complex carbs (whole grains & veggies)

Sure it may only make a difference of a couple of hundred calories a day between the two extremes...but as Tescos are so fond of saying, every little helps

freelancejouster

To me, pretty much, a calorie is a calorie.

however, lately I've found that I'm SUPER prone to snacking at night. Then I realized that all of my snack foods are super processed carbs/sugars. Lately I've been attempting to eat at least some of them in protein because you feel fuller after eating protein. Which is really helpful when restricting!

albertabeefy

Proteins is over rated, we don't "build" muscles. That's called hyperlasia which is debatable in humans. The muscles actually fill with fluids or the cells expand, this is based around carbs.. not protein.

Perhaps I'm not understanding you, but are you suggesting that hypertrophy (increase in size of muscle fiber) occurs without protein and relies solely upon carbohydrate?

If that is what you're suggesting, it's inaccurate.

The 2012 article "Protein timing and its effects on muscular hypertrophy and strength in individuals engaged in weight-training" (full text here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1550-2783-9-54/fulltext.html ) uses considerable research to validate the idea that:

"For maximal muscle hypertrophy to occur, weightlifters need to consume 1.2-2.0 grams (g). protein kilogram. (kg)-1 and > 44–50 kilocalories (kcal).kg-1 body weight daily"

Simply put, hypertrophy does require considerable protein intake - it's not carbohydrate-based.

MsPudding

The theory is great on paper but in real life, not so much. 1,500 calories is a about or usually more than a full days worth of calories for most women.

1,500 is what many women on a diet (some more, some less). Here in the UK, the National Health Service recommend 2,000 calories a day for an average women who isn't dieting/

As I said, i have personally consumed up to 500g of protein with no benefits of TEF.

I would guess it changes a bit from individual to individual. I personally find that if I eat my allotted calories worth of refined carbs/sugars then I tend to get bloated and weight-loss stalls....not mention that I feel like crap. If I eat more protein and complex carbs I seem to lose weight more steadily, I don't have the 'mid afternoon slump' and feel healthier in general.

mmapags

To think that you will achieve any significant amount of weight loss and achieve micro and macronutrient balance while trying to manipulate TEF is a useless exercise. It will make little difference in the long run and is not worth focusing on.

MsPudding

Yes but a woman is not going to eat 100% o their diet of protein if their diet is 1,500 calories, they're not going to eat 1,500 calories of protein.

Obviously nobody is going to eat 100% protein and I didn't ever suggest anyone would. I said that a diet that was *mostly* protein/complex carbs (i.e. both of those) would have a head start over a diet that was *mostly* refined carbs/fats. It may only be a relatively small difference, but would you dispute that there *is* a difference?

mmapags

Yes but a woman is not going to eat 100% o their diet of protein if their diet is 1,500 calories, they're not going to eat 1,500 calories of protein.

Obviously nobody is going to eat 100% protein and I didn't ever suggest anyone would. I said that a diet that was *mostly* protein/complex carbs (i.e. both of those) would have a head start over a diet that was *mostly* refined carbs/fats. It may only be a relatively small difference, but would you dispute that there *is* a difference?

It is insignificant. Essentially, it is majoring in the minor to give this any focus. I eat 160 grams of protein per day. The 48 calories of TEF from this might not even account for the measuring error in my exercise or food logging for the day. It is essentially a useless exercise.

albertabeefy

I'm guessing you meant:

... reminds me of another study. They gave people a diet of either 90% carbs, 90% protein or 90% fats.

Just to clarify for those that were thinking it was one diet of 270% ...

...and on the results:

Carb group: gained weight
Protein group: lost a little weight
fat group: lost the most...

According to the TEF, that makes no sense at all. You know what it happened that way? Cause of insulin, Insulin makes you tired. The carb group produced the most insulin, the protein group produced moderate levels of insulin(half of protein gets converted to glucose(carbs in the blood) fat producs no insulin. The more insulin you produce the more tired you are and the less active you are.

To answer your question directly. Is there a difference, yes there is on paper. Have i seen the real effects in the real world? No

Those results occur quite commonly in studies of obese, sedentary individuals given either low-carb ketogenic diets or low-fat diets - with the same caloric intake.

Even with the same caloric intake, the low-carb ketogenic groups universally (literally dozens of randomized, controlled trials I've read) lose more weight than the low-fat diet groups do, even with factoring in every possible confounding variable you can.

And yes, as Pu_239 suggests, it's pretty clear now that it's due to the reduced serum insulin levels.

Unlike him I have seen it in practical, clinical application myself though I should state the increased weight-loss effect is more-common in obese and very overweight individuals - and much-more-common in those with Type II diabetes - than in those otherwise healthy individuals with only a little weight (under 20-25% of their body-weight) to lose.

albertabeefy

I completely missed that. Yes obese people have more difficulty with glucose than thinner people. That can explain a lot about fatigue and lower NET(Non Exercise Thermogenisis)

It's sad that many physicians are still using "fasting glucose" testing on obese people to check for diabetes, because in the obese with metabolic-syndrome, the fasting glucose reading is usually the LAST to go.

Obese individuals with metabolic syndrome typically have insulin-resistance which results in high levels of serum insulin - as such, after a night's sleep that insulin EVENTUALLY gets blood glucose back down to normal readings, even if they've been hyperglycemic since their first meal and all day thereafter.

(Better testing for obese individuals are the HbA1c test or a lab-administered OGTT - Oral Glucose Tolerance Test - the latter being a much-better indicator.)

This is why very-low-carb ketogenic diets are so successful in treating the obese - the reduced levels of serum glucose mean reduced levels of serum insulin.

BTW there is no evidence to suggest the diet itself improves insulin-sensitivity, even though study conclusions often report greater improvements over other diets.

All research indicates the biggest factor in improving insulin-sensitivity is reduction of adipose tissue (ie: body fat), and reduction in visceral (in/around the organs) adipose tissue is more-effective than reduction in subcutaneous body-fat. And since we can't spot-reduce or otherwise target fat reduction, that means reduce overall...

The second biggest factor in improving insulin-sensitivity is exercise. Any is good, but several clinical trials now have shown HIIT (High-Intensity-Interval-Training) superior to other forms of cardiovascular training for improving insulin sensitivity. The research is fairly new and the exact mechanism is yet unknown.

So overall when you see studies say a low-carb diet improves insulin-sensitivity, it does this through the accompanying fat-loss (which, as mentioned, is greater than with other diets) and the usual exercise recommendation - not diet alone.

albertabeefy

That's interesting about HIIT,it dos make sense though. More glucose would be used at a higher intensity of exercise. I am pretty sure weight training does the same thing. Inreasing the size of a muscle it will hold more glucose which will take it out of the blood stream. This also helps.

The theory is something like this:

1. Because HIIT utilizes anaerobic metabolism rather than aerobic, and;

2. Anaerobic metabolism can ONLY use glucose (well, it uses the tiny amount of creatine phosphate in our muscles first, but that's gone in a few seconds) for cellular respiration, whereas aerobic metabolism uses fat/glucose, that;

3. Something triggers a shift that causes rapid take-up of the required glucose - somehow changing insulin-sensitivity at the receptor level, to more-quickly feed the anaerobic metabolism's cellular respiration - which the body sees as an urgent requirement, and;

4. Long-term exposure to this exercise actually improves insulin-sensitivity at the receptor level, due to what we can basically call 'training', much like we become more biomechanically efficient the more we perform a task repeatedly, it appears we can also become more biochemically efficient.

That will take a little more research to confirm, though. But it's pretty sound reasoning if you ask me.

As you know with metabolic syndrome there are many associated health risks. I tell people to just focus on calories, i believe this improves diet adherence. People start to focus on many things and just get frustrated, which will give them a big chance to fail.

Calories in/out is a crucial calculation - even though there are some in the low-carb circles that suggest it isn't important.

Sure, there may be some people that due to the satiety effect of a high-fat diet actually eat less calories daily, thus losing weight... but for someone who overeats due to emotional/psychological issues, or someone that overeats simply because their family/friends overeat - NOT worrying about calories while eating highly caloric foods (ie: fat) could be a disaster.

I guess what i am trying to say "healthy food" vs "junk food" I also propose this question to people who are on a "health trip." Who is healthier, 400 obese man eating healthy, or a man at a healthy weight eating junk? To be "healthy" the priority is to get rid of excess fat, then clean up your diet.

And the answer to the question you pose can't really be answered without so many more variables, which I'm sure you realize.

The IIFYM crowd do have some validity to the idea that once they get all their proper nutrients/vitamins/minerals/etc. that the rest of the diet doesn't matter ... with some caveats. IIFYM people still need to eat what's optimum for them in terms of ratio of carbs/protein/fat, and still need to get their nutrients, and shouldn't overeat. If they legitimately do the first three, (get nutrients, meet macros, don't overeat) they really don't have much room left for junk

RainHoward

A calorie is a calorie just as a pound is a pound.
Would you rather have a pound of sand or a pound of gold?

ExplorinLauren

I don't believe a calorie is a calorie, in terms of alcohol. lol

In anything else, I guess a calorie is a calorie. Stay under a certain amount, no matter what you eat, you'll lose some weight.
But, if you want to eat healthier, and feel fuller, and gain other aspects of nutrition (like skin changes, energy, etc) you want your calorie to count. And would want to eat better foods

I don't believe the average person in America needs 300+ carbs a day. (based on the 2000-2500 cal 'normal' diet) Only athletes,long distance runners, lifters/weight gainers need that much in my opinion. I think its one of the reasons American's are obese. So I try to follow a low-er carb life, and stay under 100-125 a day.
I followed phase 1 of Atkins many times, and long periods of times, and I don't believe that is the way to go either! 20 carbs or less a day is a little crazy, too.
Another problem is calories and fat, say... in fast food. Another problem in our country. You can easily eat 800-1500 calories at Mcdonalds/ Pizza place/ Chinese food... and that is just in one meal.

I think moral of the story is... eat less in everything. Generally. If you're going to eat more of something, make it protein or veggies. Make every calorie count by eating the best foods you can, and not over indulge in any one "macro" .. again, my opinion.

Disclaimer: Alcohol. (Idk about anyone else, but no matter how I fit it in my 'macros' I still can't lose weight.... at least not at a great rate) ! :drinker:

mmapags

That's interesting about HIIT,it dos make sense though. More glucose would be used at a higher intensity of exercise. I am pretty sure weight training does the same thing. Inreasing the size of a muscle it will hold more glucose which will take it out of the blood stream. This also helps.

The theory is something like this:

1. Because HIIT utilizes anaerobic metabolism rather than aerobic, and;

2. Anaerobic metabolism can ONLY use glucose (well, it uses the tiny amount of creatine phosphate in our muscles first, but that's gone in a few seconds) for cellular respiration, whereas aerobic metabolism uses fat/glucose, that;

3. Something triggers a shift that causes rapid take-up of the required glucose - somehow changing insulin-sensitivity at the receptor level, to more-quickly feed the anaerobic metabolism's cellular respiration - which the body sees as an urgent requirement, and;

4. Long-term exposure to this exercise actually improves insulin-sensitivity at the receptor level, due to what we can basically call 'training', much like we become more biomechanically efficient the more we perform a task repeatedly, it appears we can also become more biochemically efficient.

That will take a little more research to confirm, though. But it's pretty sound reasoning if you ask me.

As you know with metabolic syndrome there are many associated health risks. I tell people to just focus on calories, i believe this improves diet adherence. People start to focus on many things and just get frustrated, which will give them a big chance to fail.

Calories in/out is a crucial calculation - even though there are some in the low-carb circles that suggest it isn't important.

Sure, there may be some people that due to the satiety effect of a high-fat diet actually eat less calories daily, thus losing weight... but for someone who overeats due to emotional/psychological issues, or someone that overeats simply because their family/friends overeat - NOT worrying about calories while eating highly caloric foods (ie: fat) could be a disaster.

I guess what i am trying to say "healthy food" vs "junk food" I also propose this question to people who are on a "health trip." Who is healthier, 400 obese man eating healthy, or a man at a healthy weight eating junk? To be "healthy" the priority is to get rid of excess fat, then clean up your diet.

And the answer to the question you pose can't really be answered without so many more variables, which I'm sure you realize.

The IIFYM crowd do have some validity to the idea that once they get all their proper nutrients/vitamins/minerals/etc. that the rest of the diet doesn't matter ... with some caveats. IIFYM people still need to eat what's optimum for them in terms of ratio of carbs/protein/fat, and still need to get their nutrients, and shouldn't overeat. If they legitimately do the first three, (get nutrients, meet macros, don't overeat) they really don't have much room left for junk

Lol, you are completely correct on IIFM! You can have some treats but whenever I see someone saying something like, "so, your saying you can just pig out on pizza, cheeseburgers and desserts?" I always laugh because they have obviously missed the points you've made about getting nutrient, meeting macros and hitting calorie targets.

MsPudding

I am a biochemistry student, I do do work in a lab for school. As I said previously "it looks good on paper but in the real world no."

I'm not a biochemistry student...I'm in games development.

I don't see any real life benefits of doing it. Oh tat reminds me of another study. They gave people a diet of 90% carbs, 90% protein 90% fats.

Carb group: gained weight
Protein group: lost a little weight
fat group: lost the most...

According to the TEF, that makes no sense at all. You know what it happened that way? Cause of insulin, Insulin makes you tired. The carb group produced the most insulin, the protein group produced moderate levels of insulin(half of protein gets converted to glucose(carbs in the blood) fat producs no insulin. The more insulin you produce the more tired you are and the less active you are.

To answer your question directly. Is there a difference, yes there is on paper. Have i seen the real effects in the real world? No

So on paper the human body burns more calories digesting protein than any other food group and in the information you've given above, the obese individuals on a diet high in fat seemed to do better than on a diet high in carbs or protein. So aren't we essentially saying the same thing? A calorie is a calorie but the body doesn't appear to treat all calories the same.

On the point of it not making a difference what you eat - well I think that there's a diet which will result in weight loss, which is essentially a diet that is deficient in calories, no matter what it's made up of or there's a diet which probably brings wider health benefits. I'm afraid that I am one of those who feels that cooking from scratch, from good proteins, complex carbs and fats the majority of the time is a more healthy way of life than simply staying within calorie goals but eating entirely processed food and takeaways for the majority of the time. I know everyone doesn't agree with that - which proves the point that 'opinions are like arseholes; everyone has one'.

DottieNewton

If your only goal is weight loss..it doesn't make much difference where you cut calories. But, if health is your goal it makes a world of difference. I find I am NOT satisfied when eating junk. I will just keep eating more and more never finding what it is I want. This is an emotional as well as a physical response.

I was conditioned years ago to think fat was bad. So, tho I have been using skim milk and other low or no fat products and not eating fried foods for years my weight ballooned to 250 pounds. So, it is rather obvious that it is not fat that makes you fat. It also is not carbs that make you fat. Nor is it protein that makes you fat. It is overeating and not moving.
So, you can lose weight healthy or not so healthy. In the long run healthy is better.

mmapags

I am a biochemistry student, I do do work in a lab for school. As I said previously "it looks good on paper but in the real world no."

I'm not a biochemistry student...I'm in games development.

I don't see any real life benefits of doing it. Oh tat reminds me of another study. They gave people a diet of 90% carbs, 90% protein 90% fats.

Carb group: gained weight
Protein group: lost a little weight
fat group: lost the most...

According to the TEF, that makes no sense at all. You know what it happened that way? Cause of insulin, Insulin makes you tired. The carb group produced the most insulin, the protein group produced moderate levels of insulin(half of protein gets converted to glucose(carbs in the blood) fat producs no insulin. The more insulin you produce the more tired you are and the less active you are.

To answer your question directly. Is there a difference, yes there is on paper. Have i seen the real effects in the real world? No

So on paper the human body burns more calories digesting protein than any other food group and in the information you've given above, the obese individuals on a diet high in fat seemed to do better than on a diet high in carbs or protein. So aren't we essentially saying the same thing? A calorie is a calorie but the body doesn't appear to treat all calories the same.

On the point of it not making a difference what you eat - well I think that there's a diet which will result in weight loss, which is essentially a diet that is deficient in calories, no matter what it's made up of or there's a diet which probably brings wider health benefits. I'm afraid that I am one of those who feels that cooking from scratch, from good proteins, complex carbs and fats the majority of the time is a more healthy way of life than simply staying within calorie goals but eating entirely processed food and takeaways for the majority of the time. I know everyone doesn't agree with that - which proves the point that 'opinions are like arseholes; everyone has one'.

In terms of improving health and overall blood markers of health, the biggest single factor among obese is reduction of weight/ fat, irrespective of diet. Does it makes sense to eat healthy foods? Yes. But, in terms of improving health markers most dramatically in the shortest time, that is a secondary priority. Don't take my work for it, google The Twinkie Diet and read the results. Also, you present a common logical fallacy in the bolded part above. The only 2 choices are not, healthy balanced home cooked meals and processed unhealthy foods. There is a large middle ground that is some combination of the above. That is where the majority resides. In the middle somewhere.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html

Is eating nutrient dense foods a wise idea? Of course. But, if you are wanting to die on the hill of manipulation TEF as a weight loss advantage, good luck with anyone taking that too seriously. If it gives you a psychological edge for compliance, good for you. But as a universal weight/ fat loss principle you may as well believe in wizards and unicorns for all the good it will do you.

albertabeefy

In terms of improving health and overall blood markers of health, the biggest single factor among obese is reduction of weight/ fat, irrespective of diet.

This is the absolute truth.

Obesity alone causes the cardiovascular system to overwork simply to feed cellular respiration for the excess of tissue we have. This results in the hypertension seen in the obese, and just like any other muscle, having the heart be at a constant strain of hypertension can cause hypertrophy. However unlike skeletal muscle, cardiac hypertrophy is unhealthy as it results in a decrease in the size of the chambers of the heart... and decreases it's output. (Note: cardiovascular exercise in a healthy individual does not result in cardiac hypertrophy - hypertension while in a resting state is what contributes to it.)

Obesity alone also causes a decrease in insulin-sensitivity. Research shows that it's the visceral adipose tissue (body fat in/around our organs) that contributes to this more than our subcutaneous adipose tissue (body fat under the skin and above the skeletal system). A decrease in insulin-sensitivity (aka insulin-resistance) results in higher serum levels of blood glucose, leading to diabetes, which in term causes serious damage to our cardiovascular/circulatory system, which results in conditions such as diabetic neuropathy and diabetic retinopathy in addition to the CVD it causes.

Griffin220x

In terms of losing weight, a calorie is a calorie. Eat a deficit of calories by only consuming chocolate, and yes, you will lose weight.
However, chances are then you'll be losing muscle mass instead of fat. In order to change your body's actual composition, and burn fat instead of muscle, that's where it's important to watch out for your fat, carb, and protein intake.
Neither fat nor carbs are "bad". Eat both in moderation, your body needs it. Load up on protein, fiber, and all your vitamins. Exercise for at least 30 minutes a day, and you'll lose weight from unwanted fat, not muscle. By eating healthier things rather than all chocolate will also actually give you more sustainable energy, help you remain full, and focused.

Great post!

MsPudding

In terms of improving health and overall blood markers of health, the biggest single factor among obese is reduction of weight/ fat, irrespective of diet. Does it makes sense to eat healthy foods? Yes. But, in terms of improving health markers most dramatically in the shortest time, that is a secondary priority. Don't take my work for it, google The Twinkie Diet and read the results. Also, you present a common logical fallacy in the bolded part above. The only 2 choices are not, healthy balanced home cooked meals and processed unhealthy foods. There is a large middle ground that is some combination of the above. That is where the majority resides. In the middle somewhere.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html

Well I'm middle aged and obese but my blood work doesn't need improving (that's not me guessing, but my doctor's words.) Perhaps I totally lucked out genetically on that score, or perhaps what I eat has played a part in that. Regardless, if you read my post I didn't actually say it was entirely one or the other - what I actually said was eating 'mostly' one thing. If you want it put another way, I go with the 80/20 rule of thumb - eating well 80% of the time.

]Is eating nutrient dense foods a wise idea? Of course. But, if you are wanting to die on the hill of manipulation TEF as a weight loss advantage, good luck with anyone taking that too seriously. If it gives you a psychological edge for compliance, good for you. But as a universal weight/ fat loss principle you may as well believe in wizards and unicorns for all the good it will do you.

1. I didn't say that I did eat mostly protein
2. The thread is about whether a calorie is a calorie and I said that it was, however the body treats calories from different food sources differently.

Are we all straight now or would we like to venture on to discuss mythical beings like wizards, unicorns and god?

mmapags

In terms of improving health and overall blood markers of health, the biggest single factor among obese is reduction of weight/ fat, irrespective of diet.

This is the absolute truth.

Obesity alone causes the cardiovascular system to overwork simply to feed cellular respiration for the excess of tissue we have. This results in the hypertension seen in the obese, and just like any other muscle, having the heart be at a constant strain of hypertension can cause hypertrophy. However unlike skeletal muscle, cardiac hypertrophy is unhealthy as it results in a decrease in the size of the chambers of the heart... and decreases it's output. (Note: cardiovascular exercise in a healthy individual does not result in cardiac hypertrophy - hypertension while in a resting state is what contributes to it.)

Obesity alone also causes a decrease in insulin-sensitivity. Research shows that it's the visceral adipose tissue (body fat in/around our organs) that contributes to this more than our subcutaneous adipose tissue (body fat under the skin and above the skeletal system). A decrease in insulin-sensitivity (aka insulin-resistance) results in higher serum levels of blood glucose, leading to diabetes, which in term causes serious damage to our cardiovascular/circulatory system, which results in conditions such as diabetic neuropathy and diabetic retinopathy in addition to the CVD it causes.

QFT
eta: This is a critical focus. The fact that the body treats macronutrients differently is somewhat minor to the point of being irrelevant to all but diabetics and hypoglycemics.