A Calorie is a Calorie?

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.