Does it really matter where the calories come from?

No it doesn't matter, and no you can't eat nutritionally deficient foods then expect pills to compensate for the deficiency. And less meat, you must mean chicken because people have been eating less red meat over the last 30 yrs or so and where chicken consumption has risen over 400%. Chicken must be the cause of obesity and heart disease, and.

In terms of health and body compostion: Yes.

In terms of weight loss? No.

Edit to say: And since when was eating less meat considered good for you?

it is.

I hope the vague comment of "it is." is referring to the first two sentences and not the lack of meat being considered good for you. Because I just KNOW that no coach can be giving out THAT bad of a statement

haha the poster didn't say a "lack of meat" is good for you. he said eating "less" meat.

the average american eats far more meat than he or she needs to, and cutting back (not cutting it out) can help on all sorts of fronts from lowering overall caloric intake to making sure you're getting enough v+m by increasing fruit and veggie intake, etc. there are also environmental factors if you care about that kind of thing.

a) Average American isn't tracking their calories and macros. Which I assume most on this site are so unless they want to starve themselve, they automatically are likely to eat up some nutrition. AKA veggies, fruits etc along with high cal meats (like fatty steak).

b) I like how you just assumed people are American.

c) What environmental factors? Like a cow from Nebraska says moo but the cow from California starts laughing hysterically like in the California cheese ads? You know those aren't real right...?

i'm not actually going to attempt to have a real conversation with taunto.

Firstly I agree with what most folks are saying that 200 cals is 200 cals so it doesn't matter, however, just to mix things up a little, how does the Atkins thing work.

If someone with a TDEE of 1500 cals ate 2000cals of healthy food every day they would gain weight but if the same person ate 2000cals of food that is low carb and up to 70% fat they will lose weight. This makes no sense to me despite the inarguable fact that people do lose weight on Atkins. I know this as I have done it myself.

I wouldn't recommend it and I don't believe it is healthy but curious as to why the 'science' doesn't work in this instance!!?

they won't lose weight if they're eating 500 cal above their TDEE

Ps - I would NEVER depend on a supplement for my "nutrition." MOST vitamins are not even absorbed, it's hard enough getting all of your nutrients absorbed through whole foods. Digestion is a tricky tricky thing and many health issues that most of you don't even know you have can totally interfere with getting your nutrients where they need to go.

Firstly I agree with what most folks are saying that 200 cals is 200 cals so it doesn't matter, however, just to mix things up a little, how does the Atkins thing work.

If someone with a TDEE of 1500 cals ate 2000cals of healthy food every day they would gain weight but if the same person ate 2000cals of food that is low carb and up to 70% fat they will lose weight. This makes no sense to me despite the inarguable fact that people do lose weight on Atkins. I know this as I have done it myself.

I wouldn't recommend it and I don't believe it is healthy but curious as to why the 'science' doesn't work in this instance!!?

they won't lose weight if they're eating 500 cal above their TDEE

I would normally agree but in that case how on earth do Atkins dieters lose weight (and they clearly do) as there is a tendency towards a large amount of meat, dairy, high fat, high calorie food on this diet. Surely all these 'successes' cant be from people who chowed down on this stuff and yet still 'accidentally' ate less than their TDEE!!?

We do have to expand more calories, or energy, than we consume in order to lose weight. But the overall quality of our diet (variety of food, including plenty of fruits, veggies, and whole grains) is also very important.

We need to be satisfied with what we're eating. When fewer calories are taken in, each food really counts. The foods we choose should offer nutrients full of vitamins, minerals, and other beneficial substances. Good health is not just about the number on the scale, but more about eating a varied diet. So, include carbohydrates, proteins, some fat, and fiber, along with those vitamins and minerals, rather than eating only one nutrient. Don't forget phytochemicals (plant chemicals found in tomatoes, garlic, onions, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, carrots, apricots, citrus fruits, leafy green vegetables, soybeans, and other fruits and vegetables), too.
So, what do you need to know when planning what to eat for weight loss and weight management? In general, lower fat diets are recommended because, if properly planned, they are healthier and more fulfilling. With high fat diets, calories add up quickly because fat provides nine calories per gram (protein and carbohydrate each supply for calories per gram). You may crowd out important nutrients and not be totally satisfied on a high fat diet. In addition, high fat diets have been connected to the development of heart disease, some cancers, and gall bladder disease, among other ills.

By replacing foods high in fat with foods low in fat, but higher in protein or carbohydrates, the number of calories are automatically cut down (if you don't eat a greater quantity). Substituting a high fat food with a high fiber food will help keep folks feeling full and content with fewer calories as well. Many carbohydrate-rich foods are also high in fiber. Since humans can't digest fiber, it adds bulk and is filling and satisfying, which are among its healthy benefits.

As you can see, it does matter where the nutrients come from. And, balance is key. If your calories are mostly from fat, you may end up taking in too many calories, possibly leading to weight gain. On the other hand, if you're limiting calories to lose weight while on a high fat diet, you probably won't be satisfied because you'll be eating a small amount of food. In the long run, sticking with this eating plan is not healthy because it's nutritionally limited.

I would normally agree but in that case how on earth do Atkins dieters lose weight (and they clearly do) as there is a tendency towards a large amount of meat, dairy, high fat, high calorie food on this diet. Surely all these 'successes' cant be from people who chowed down on this stuff and yet still 'accidentally' ate less than their TDEE!!?

by cutting out (or drastically down) their carbs, people on atkins ARE eating in a caloric deficit. Get rid of all your bread, candy, sugar, most snacks, cereals, desserts, starches and what have you, and you've probably cut 1500 calories off your normal daily intake. Atkins isn't magic, it's just cutting a specific type of calories instead of calories in general.

for most people, going with high protein, high fat meats and such will be self limiting as it's filling and leaves you feeling full for a long time after. especially compared to simple sugar products like cookies, ice cream, or soda. doesn't work for me as I can eat the whole pig in one sitting, and come back later to eat half the cow.

So what you're saying is, the whole concept of ketosis does not exist, but is strictly a calorie deficit?
This is a lie? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis#Diet
(No, I'm not doing keto/atkins.)

In ketosis your body burns fat as its primary energy source. However, to be in ketosis you also need to be eating an awful lot of dietary fat. Your body burns dietary fat for energy before it turns to fat or muscle tissue, and therefore, if you want to lose weight in ketosis, you still need to eat at a deficit.

There is a difference in types of calories. The cookie in your example is an example of an energy-dense food. The broccoli is an example of nutrient dense. Yes, you get the same *amount* of calories in both choices, but you get better *quality* calories in the broccoli. Cookies (unless you're buying WhoNu) don't have much in the way of nutrients, and most of the calories come from sugar and fat. The calories in broccoli carry with them calcium, vitamin C, vitamin A and iron.

Think of it as spending $200. You can choose to spend $200 on cookies and get less bang for your buck because they're more expensive per unit, or you can spend $200 on broccoli and get more bang for your buck because it's more broccoli per unit than the cookies.

Theoretically, yes, if you cut back your calories and eat nothing but 1100 calories a day of cookies, you'll lose weight. But your body will eventually go into starvation mode because of nutrient deficiency. And you'll feel like crap.

With diet, you get out what you put in.

i eat wat i want and still lose weight if i dnt go over bord

basically it doesn't matter in the sense of your body has to do an energy balance, cals in vs cals out.

A slight note for completeness though - carbs, fats and protein have different TEF's and therefore use different amounts of calories to process the food ingested ..... this makes up a small portion of your calories out.

Could you elaborate a little bit on what part of my understanding is flawed? From what I just read is sounds like you're saying the creation of a calorie deficit through the removal of most carbs is the cause of drastic weight loss and not ketosis causing your body to cleave your fat cells for the purpose of creating 3 fatty acid chains and 1 glycerol. Did I misread you? Please enlighten me. (Not being sarcastic. If I'm misunderstanding how ketosis works please correct me.)

you're switching from one type of fuel, glycogen based, to a different type of fuel, ketone based. If your tdee is 2000 cals per day, and you eat 5000 cals of fatty brisket, your body will get it's fuel needs from the converted fat.....and store the additional calories as fat. you're in a deficit or you're not. just because you are using fat as fuel doesn't mean your body retired from the 'store extra calories as fat' business'.

Thank you. Well stated. Now I fully understand what you mean.

Thanks all. I guess I can see how this would work. There must be so many Atkins folks out there who have no idea that they are actually on a calorie controlled diet.:laugh:

Could you elaborate a little bit on what part of my understanding is flawed? From what I just read is sounds like you're saying the creation of a calorie deficit through the removal of most carbs is the cause of drastic weight loss and not ketosis causing your body to cleave your fat cells for the purpose of creating 3 fatty acid chains and 1 glycerol. Did I misread you? Please enlighten me. (Not being sarcastic. If I'm misunderstanding how ketosis works please correct me.)

you're switching from one type of fuel, glycogen based, to a different type of fuel, ketone based. If your tdee is 2000 cals per day, and you eat 5000 cals of fatty brisket, your body will get it's fuel needs from the converted fat.....and store the additional calories as fat. you're in a deficit or you're not. just because you are using fat as fuel doesn't mean your body retired from the 'store extra calories as fat' business'.

Thank you. Well stated. Now I fully understand what you mean.

Thanks all. I guess I can see how this would work. There must be so many Atkins folks out there who have no idea that they are actually on a calorie controlled diet.:laugh:

Something I was thinking about, and I'm not 100% sure of is the efficiency of cleaving the 3 fatty acid chains and 1 glycerol (ketosis) compared to that of regular calorie burn. Don't quote me, but I "think" because of the inefficiency of this method you burn a percentage more then you would on a regular diet. I "believe" the ratios would change. So if you had a regular 2000kcal diet normally it would change to something like.....2500kcal? (Total guess number), because of the inefficiency of the ketosis cellular cleave. (I'm not adept enough on keto/atkins to speak proficiently on the topic, but I know there's some sort of efficiency science involved.) So a 5,000kcal diet would still nuke both a regular and a keto dieter.