Not All Calories Are The Same, New Research Finds

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.

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?

bump for later

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.

Bump. My brain needs coffee first.

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.

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.

Bump

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.