New study out of Harvard -- TYPE of calories matters more
Options
Replies
-
My point is... if you feel and are healthy, does all the nit-picky science really matter? Don't get me wrong. I love science. It's amazing. But, it's the big picture that motivate me!
No it doesn't... but to be fair, the study wasn't trying to help healthy people either. It was trying to help overweight and obese people who fail at maintaining their weight loss.
In their words, To examine the effects of 3 diets differing widely in macronutrient composition and glycemic load on energy expenditure following weight loss.
Incidentally, this is the reason they were measuring leptin.
Well, I'll definitely be looking forward to seeing my next annual physical results (not til July) after maintaining my weight loss. I have to maintain my weight loss in basically the same way that I attained my weight loss. So, explain to me (seriously, I'm curious) the difference between helping overweight/obsese people who are beginning a weight loss "program" vs overweight/obsese people who failed to maintain a prior weight loss. How does the principal of diet and exercise change?0 -
following weight loss?
when you are not overweight the calories don't matter, what with the leptin now?
It's very small overall. Forget leptin, please......
I am obese, so I am curious about these things. Maybe you aren't ... anyways, I'm the messenger. People were talking without actually reading the study, I read it and pasted it out of the PDF here. Apologies in advance if this annoys you. I have to go work out now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin#Leptin_and_weight_regain
for folks who may be curious. I didn't know about its connection to TSH until today, so I learned something today, and glad to ignore your advice to forget about it. Not everyone is interested in these things for the same reasons. I have my own personal reasons for being interested that I probably don't share with you, that are related to my medical problems... and what may be good for me may not be good for you, so please, stop right now if you think that's what I am arguing. What's good for me is good for me... full stop
0 -
Ohhhhh.. tired of this.Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2010 Mar 25;316(2):165-71. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2009.06.005. Epub 2009 Jun 18.
Obesity and thyroid function.
Reinehr T.
Source
Department of Paediatric Nutrition Medicine, Vestische Hospital for Children and Adolescents, University of Witten/Herdecke, Datteln, Germany. T.Reinehr@kinderklinik-datteln.de
Abstract
A moderate elevation of thyrotropin (TSH) concentrations, which is associated with triiodothyronine (T3) values in or slightly above the upper normal range, is frequently found in obese humans. These alterations seem rather a consequence than a cause of obesity since weight loss leads to a normalization of elevated thyroid hormone levels. Elevated thyroid hormone concentrations increase the resting energy expenditure (REE). The underlying pathways are not fully understood. As a consequence of the increased REE, the availability of accumulated energy for conversion into fat is diminished. In conclusion, the alterations of thyroid hormones in obesity suggest an adaptation process. Since rapid weight loss is associated with a decrease of TSH and T3, the resulting decrease in REE may contribute towards the difficulties maintaining weight loss. Leptin seems to be a promising link between obesity and alterations of thyroid hormones since leptin concentrations influence TSH release.
For you. Tired.0 -
Ohhhhh.. tired of this.Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2010 Mar 25;316(2):165-71. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2009.06.005. Epub 2009 Jun 18.
Obesity and thyroid function.
Reinehr T.
Source
Department of Paediatric Nutrition Medicine, Vestische Hospital for Children and Adolescents, University of Witten/Herdecke, Datteln, Germany. T.Reinehr@kinderklinik-datteln.de
Abstract
A moderate elevation of thyrotropin (TSH) concentrations, which is associated with triiodothyronine (T3) values in or slightly above the upper normal range, is frequently found in obese humans. These alterations seem rather a consequence than a cause of obesity since weight loss leads to a normalization of elevated thyroid hormone levels. Elevated thyroid hormone concentrations increase the resting energy expenditure (REE). The underlying pathways are not fully understood. As a consequence of the increased REE, the availability of accumulated energy for conversion into fat is diminished. In conclusion, the alterations of thyroid hormones in obesity suggest an adaptation process. Since rapid weight loss is associated with a decrease of TSH and T3, the resulting decrease in REE may contribute towards the difficulties maintaining weight loss. Leptin seems to be a promising link between obesity and alterations of thyroid hormones since leptin concentrations influence TSH release.
For you. Tired.
Some of us have thyroid problems. I take medication for it.
Thank you though. There could be multiple reasons for my thyroid issues, however. Until I get a full battery of antibody tests done, I simply do not know if its related to being overweight, or if my body is attacking it until then. It's an interconnected system and the more I know about how it works, the better.0 -
Self reported intake based on dietary recall and no where does it show that any of the groups ate in a surplus and lost more weight than subjects eating in a deficit. So once again I think your misremember what you read in the past
I never said it was the same study. I said this one had slightly different conditions, in that the high-fat group was simply not calorie-restricted, rather than deliberately consuming surplus calories. I will try to find the study, it was interesting, and I'll post it on here if I do.
But you realize I was originally making a pretty basic point, right? Not all of the calories that go into your mouth go into building bodily tissues; some macronutrients are not as readily stored as fat. Perhaps you'd like to research this yourself, since you believe my reading comprehension is lacking (which I find funny, since this is at least partially my field -- I'm a biophysicist).
You mean like proteins and carbs? And since this is your field, you'd know ad lib doesn't necessarily mean they eat in a surplus, which is what you stated in your original post. What happened to the surplus cals that the subjects you mentioned were able to lose fat?
Yes, like proteins, carbs and fat. They have different rates of absorption and respond differently to the major hormone controlling fat storage. I can only speculate on what happened to the surplus cals in the study - as it was a population study, it didn't go into mechanisms. But I could guess that, first, the calorie-deficit group had a gradual reduction in metabolism. Second, insulin response is mitigated in the high-fat group. Third, higher protein consumption (I think the figure was ~25% as opposed to the WHO's ~15% recommendation) can increase lean muscle mass, gradually increasing metabolism. Last, some of them can essentially be wasted - only partially digested and used by the body. This can be a larger effect than you think, particularly depending on the combination of foods/quality of foods consumed at each meal. Of course calories have their context...if you go about eating a thousand extra every day, then regardless of the source of those calories, you're going to gain weight. But we're talking about a mere 300 here.
Oooooooh, it was a population study that you used to base your point off of? What was the avg BMI of the subjects? AS I'd guess it was based again off self reported intake and the that is notoriously inaccurate, esp among the obese.
Ah and you're throwing in some food combining nonsense for good measure? Bravo!
Food combining, losing weight in a surplus and what other goodies do you have in store? I of course am just a lay person and not an expert like you.
Would you consider DNL rare or common in the avg person?0 -
what was he smokin'? :smokin:These studies are down right laughable as they have been trying to discredit Dr Atkins and all the work he did when he was alive to help heal people through proper nutrition for each person's body.
As laughable as garbage such as this spouted by the good doctor?
"weight will be lost even when the calories taken in far exceed the calories expended"0 -
AS I'd guess it was based again off self reported intake and the that is notoriously inaccurate, esp among the obese.
I've noticed this on this site, I'd blame it for most of the problems that people have losing weight, is not logging every bite and underestimating total calories. I am quite anal retentive about logging my food, and I credit it for why I have lost weight. I do low GI for different reasons. Low GI is not unhealthy, btw.Ah and you're throwing in some food combining nonsense for good measure? Bravo!
Not always nonsense, sometimes it is. But combining a high protein food with a high GI food will bring down the total glycemic response of a meal. That's just physics, really...and it lets me have my potato and eat it, too. There's no change in total calories, and for someone who doesn't have health problems related to blood sugars, its probably unnecessary.0 -
I am very confused as to how this discussion became related to 'clean eating' when the study wasn't about that. It was about three different diets, which could be approached with or without a 'clean-eating' bias, although it may well be harder to eat 'dirty' on a low GI diet.
It also wasn't comparing low GI to high GI, but to two non GI-controlled diets, so it isn't about that either.
Also, it does not say that only 7 people tried each of the diets. It says that they were broken into three groups who cycled through the three types of diet for 4 weeks at a time, so all of the subjects tried all of the diets and the data was therefore about the diets, not differences between subjects, so differences in energy expenditure and cortisol can't be blamed on 'special snowflakes'.
This is fascinating research, showing that different diets lead to different levels of energy expenditure, and that while this expenditure is nearly the same between the low GI and the low carb, there are some other indicators, eg cortisol, which might suggest low GI has better all-round health implications.
Please. Correct me if I have misunderstood the study.0 -
If you're not obese/overweight, you may find this interesting:
http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-science-of-nutrition-is-a-carb-a-carb.html
It entirely agrees with the study, but goes on to say that if you are NOT overweight/obese and are reasonable healthy that a carb calorie IS a carb calorie.0 -
I can relate to this see it in myself, if I really want to loose weight and keep it off I need to stay away from bread etc0
-
It has always been my experience that if I eat real whole foods, I can consume about 200-300 more calories per day and still lose weight compared to a highly processed fake food diet.
This is why "low calorie" and "diet" foods simply do not work.
You can lose weight for a time eating fake foods but you will feel like garbage.
Eat real foods as close to nature as possible and live!! Plus, the pounds then come off on their own.
D0 -
The results? Researchers found the low-glycemic diet actually speeds up your metabolism and helps you burn calories.
From Abstract: Conclusion Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre–weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in REE and TEE that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet.
So, no, basically OP. Low GI is in the middle and the low carb diet comes out best re reduction in T(D)EE due to weight loss. And they all decreased, so none of them 'speeds up your metabolism and helps you burn calories' as you claim.
Also in Comment section of study: The low–glycemic index diet appears to have qualitatively similar, although smaller, metabolic benefits to the very low-carbohydrate diet, possibly without the deleterious effects on physiological stress and chronic inflammation.
I think the key word is 'possibly'. Which means that it is a hypothesis with no conclusive evidence.
Also, I think the percentage statistics for the low carb diet 15% carb, 60% fat and 30% protein are rarely followed even by low carb diet advocates. From what I've seen the most common one is 25% carb 25% fat 50% protein or 30% carb 30% fat 40% protein.
The only thing I have taken from this study is that the worst idea is to try and have a severely restricted fat intake. It would also be interesting to discover out of the 11 dropouts (a third of all participants) which ones dropped out of which diet to get an idea of sustainability of each diet.0 -
Thank you for taking the time to post this.
This has always been the case regardless of what others say on here.
Now, maybe those who insist in eating burgers, ice cream, cakes and all kinds of rubbish they shove down their throat will realise that when they say "I'm under my calories" , doesn't mean you have achieved your goal for the day of eating correctly.
Eat healthy to stay healthy. Eat crap to look and feel like it.
/sigh
There may be a marginal benefit to cutting out this type of stuff, but the reality for many of us is that trying to completely cut out the foods we love results in massive failure. I yo yo dieted all my life, until I started thinking of calories as a budget and allowing myself to eat the foods I like as long as they stay in that budget. Would the weight have come off slightly faster if I had eaten the diet suggested by this study? Maybe. Would I be able to stick to it as a lifestyle change? For me, never.
I eat some of the foods you describe as "crap" every day, and I neither look nor feel like it.
if the fat is burning for you then you shouldn't change your approach or your lifestyle just because a new research says so... but you have to take to consideration the fact that we all have different metabolism and goals.
if you are blessed with genetic wonders, wherein you burn crap calories, then by all means, keep doing what you are doing, but if you wish to really see that abs of your, then I bet a million dollars that you will have to throw those crap calories out the window.
again, it all boils down to your goal and your physiological gifts or disadvantages. the research only suggest.0 -
I didn't read the study, but did find the posts interesting. Just as no one medication works for everyone, no one diet will likely work for everyone either, or even over a long period of time. I would suspect a huge variable is how individuals digest food, as well as the type of food(and as someone pointed out, how that food is prepared). It is my understanding that a calorie is measure of heat. So in one sense a calorie is a calorie, but it would be dependent on how well our body can burn the fuel. Some fuels, such as alcohol burn easily and readily, where others such a wood take a lot of energy just to start burning and rarely burn efficiently (simple vs. complex card). I would think that our digestion of food operates similarly, so it does make sense to me that we need to monitor what we eat as well as the raw calories. Also, our body tend to change and adjust over time making it difficult to state things in absolute terms.
So in general, keep good track of your calories, the type of calories(some things might work better for you) , how much you THINK you burn, and not to be grotesque, but what's coming out the other end (unused calories) -- then adjust things accordingly. Stay positive, stay balanced, and provide support to others.0 -
What are "crap calories", and how is one genetically disposed to burn them?
if the fat is burning for you then you shouldn't change your approach or your lifestyle just because a new research says so... but you have to take to consideration the fact that we all have different metabolism and goals.
if you are blessed with genetic wonders, wherein you burn crap calories, then by all means, keep doing what you are doing, but if you wish to really see that abs of your, then I bet a million dollars that you will have to throw those crap calories out the window.
again, it all boils down to your goal and your physiological gifts or disadvantages. the research only suggest.0 -
I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I'll throw out a totally unscienific observation about why eating healthy helps you to lose weight. It's really easy for me to pass up a lot of the crap (white bread, fried food, processed food) because I know it just won't taste good. It will have less texture, less flavor, more salt and leave a greasy film and/or a chemical aftertaste in my mouth.
Last night (well. early this AM) we were hustled off an American Airlines flight that was supposed to go to London and they handed out food vouchers to the only places at O'Hare that were open: Starbucks, McD's and Dunkin' Donuts. I actually turned them down. I had brought a decent sandwich on board and had a couple of packs of pistachios with me and plenty of water. I also turned down the granola bars they handed out- it was a brand I know had high-fructose corn syrup. LOTS of calories saved.
My eating habits are not always virtuous, but I choose my high-calorie splurges and passing up a lot of the crap really helps keep down my intake.0 -
Who cares eat however the **** you wanna eat0
-
A calorie is NOT a calorie. Which is why people definitely can lose weight on a low carb, high fat, moderate protein diet (ketogenic) while eating the same amount of calories as someone on a high carb, low fat diet.
http://articles.elitefts.com/nutrition/logic-does-not-apply-iii-a-calorie-is-a-calorie/
This is a great article with many sources of studies. I am currently on a cyclic ketogenic diet. I consume approximately 2000cals a day. I'm sure if most of my calories came from carbs, I would not be getting the results I am getting. I only spike my insulin once a week to up-regulate my leptin and thyroid levels. Cutting calories can lead to muscle loss, but switching the energy source your body uses to burn fat for energy can help you maintain your muscle, as your body is constantly being fed fat (from food and your adipose tissue).0 -
Wed 06/27/12 07:04 AM
Wow, this topic died on page 3 seven months ago. Who the heck resurrected it and then went on to post 6 more pages about it?0 -
A calorie is NOT a calorie. Which is why people definitely can lose weight on a low carb, high fat, moderate protein diet (ketogenic) while eating the same amount of calories as someone on a high carb, low fat diet.
http://articles.elitefts.com/nutrition/logic-does-not-apply-iii-a-calorie-is-a-calorie/
This is a great article with many sources of studies. I am currently on a cyclic ketogenic diet. I consume approximately 2000cals a day. I'm sure if most of my calories came from carbs, I would not be getting the results I am getting. I only spike my insulin once a week to up-regulate my leptin and thyroid levels. Cutting calories can lead to muscle loss, but switching the energy source your body uses to burn fat for energy can help you maintain your muscle, as your body is constantly being fed fat (from food and your adipose tissue).
Interestingly enough holding cals and protein constant, there is no significat difference in fat loss between a high carb or low carb diet0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions