A calorie is not a calorie - proof sugar is the problem.
Options
Replies
-
Saying a calorie isn't a calorie is just like saying a pound isn't a pound. YES IT IS! A calorie is a unit of measurement - nothing more, nothing less. Specifically, a calorie is the amount of energy required to heat 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celsius.0
-
0
-
I tell you what OP... if you really want to prove to us that sugar is the problem, then continue your diet as you do, but eat 1,000 calories above maintenance. Then, report back to us your results.
I don't think you've understood the point about calories. What these guys are saying (Lustig) is that if you eat say 2000 a day with high GI carb loading, the increased insulin levels might cause say 500 of those to get stored into fat rather than being burned. So you only have 1500 a day available to your muscles and organs. So you feel hungry, so you eat more.. This is what they mean about we are eating more because we are getting fat and not vice versa. The First Law of Thermodynamics is intact (energy is constant in a closed system - i.e. energy balance) but it doesn't tell us anything about causation. This biochemical model of fat storage does.
It would be interesting to do a study where one ate say 2000 calories of real food in one test group and another group also ate 2000 calories but had 1000 cals replaced by sugar and bread etc and see how that pans out over a year or two. I doubt it could every be controlled accurately or even if it's ethical but I suspect that group 2 would have higher body fat % and experience more hunger pangs. 1000 cals a day from simple carbs is not excessive either - try a large coke and large fries at Macky Ds.
Clearly a calorie is not a calorie even if you ignore metabolism problems with Fructose. Sugar provides ZERO nutrients. 100 cals of ANY other food is ALWAYS better for you than 100 cals of sugar because every other food contains at least some other nutrient.
I know you can lose weight on sugar - I lost 50lbs while calorie counting and keeping my sweet treats / cheats. There are twinkie diets and all sorts of low nutrient diets you can lose weight on. We are bit more enlightened here I hope.
If I had dropped the treats and replaced it with say protein, maybe my body fat % wouldn't still be 20% and I wouldn't have lost some muscle along with the fat? I'm pretty sure any fitness coach would say that would have been better. We are all learning I guess.
We are in the business of asking how do we lose the fat (not the weight) off our bodies whilst feeling good and healthy and not suffering from hunger and cravings. I think the evidence shows that sugar is a major obstacle to those objectives. If it turns out that sugar is the elixir of life and a fantastic fat burning food, I'll be more than happy to pull out the kit kat chunkies again I assure you :-)
This will be the third time I post this, since you seem to gloss over it, 43% of caloric intake as sucrose or 21.5% of intake as fructose, oh noes!
Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
I can only see the abstract but that is a very small 6 week study. From what I gather it is also total calorie controlled. That type is a very poor indicator of real world self regulated eating. I don't have time to go dig it up but I remember at least one comparing HFLC, LFHC, and another group. In the end HFLC group saw the most weight loss and controlled calorie intake more easily then the other 2 groups.0 -
Ah. You've found the problem, good. YOU WILL NEVER GAIN WEIGHT AGAIN.0
-
I can only see the abstract but that is a very small 6 week study. From what I gather it is also total calorie controlled. That type is a very poor indicator of real world self regulated eating. I don't have time to go dig it up but I remember at least one comparing HFLC, LFHC, and another group. In the end HFLC group saw the most weight loss and controlled calorie intake more easily then the other 2 groups.
You think a study where calories are not controlled will be more beneficial?0 -
I can only see the abstract but that is a very small 6 week study. From what I gather it is also total calorie controlled. That type is a very poor indicator of real world self regulated eating. I don't have time to go dig it up but I remember at least one comparing HFLC, LFHC, and another group. In the end HFLC group saw the most weight loss and controlled calorie intake more easily then the other 2 groups.
You think a study where calories are not controlled will be more beneficial?
When looking at naturally controlling calorie intake, yes. After isn't half of this thread arguing that the problem is eating too many calories?0 -
I can only see the abstract but that is a very small 6 week study. From what I gather it is also total calorie controlled. That type is a very poor indicator of real world self regulated eating. I don't have time to go dig it up but I remember at least one comparing HFLC, LFHC, and another group. In the end HFLC group saw the most weight loss and controlled calorie intake more easily then the other 2 groups.
You think a study where calories are not controlled will be more beneficial?
When looking at naturally controlling calorie intake, yes. After isn't half of this thread arguing that the problem is eating too many calories?
Which may be relevant for ad lib eating, but not for people who track there food...like on here. It would only indicate the impact that it has on behavior/adherence - not anything to do with 'a calorie is not a calorie'.0 -
A calorie is a calorie. That is fact.
Another fact, seemingly unknown to many for some reason, is that our bodies use calories differently depending on need & the source of the calories.
How our bodies use the foods we eat is not really simple and we are still learning about it. Researching the subject can be fascinating & time-consuming.0 -
Strong broscience.
I rely on broscience. When a see a fit guy or woman I ask them what they eat- broscience.0 -
I do not agree a calorie is a calorie. A calorie from glucose eaten is very efficiently used as energy by body. A calorie eaten from a complex carb must be converted (i.e. energy spent) to a form where it can be used as energy. Thus, if you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 efficient calories- maintain weight. If you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 calories that are not efficient, must be converted, there will be a calorie deficit for the energy of conversion-i.e. weight loss.0
-
I do not agree a calorie is a calorie. A calorie from glucose eaten is very efficiently used as energy by body. A calorie eaten from a complex carb must be converted (i.e. energy spent) to a form where it can be used as energy. Thus, if you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 efficient calories- maintain weight. If you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 calories that are not efficient, must be converted, there will be a calorie deficit for the energy of conversion-i.e. weight loss.
Then you are not expending 2000 calories if you are treating the energy cost of processing different substrates as something occuring in addition to that 2000 calorie expense. This energy cost is included in the energy-out part of the equation.0 -
Good response!0
-
I do not agree a calorie is a calorie. A calorie from glucose eaten is very efficiently used as energy by body. A calorie eaten from a complex carb must be converted (i.e. energy spent) to a form where it can be used as energy. Thus, if you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 efficient calories- maintain weight. If you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 calories that are not efficient, must be converted, there will be a calorie deficit for the energy of conversion-i.e. weight loss.
Then you are not expending 2000 calories if you are treating the energy cost of processing different substrates as something occuring in addition to that 2000 calorie expense. This energy cost is included in the energy-out part of the equation.
Still do not agree. Sitting still for 24 hours the person burns 2000 calories, and eats only 2000 calories of glucose which has no conversion calories, thus, the person burns 2000 calories and eats 2000 calories- maintain weight.
Now the person expending 2000 calories sitting still eats 2000 calories of sweet potato which requires energy (calories) to convert to glucose. Now the calories expended are 2000 plus some unknown amount of conversion energy (calories). The calorie deficit (weight loss) will be the amount of conversion energy calories.
How do you include the "conversion" calories in the original equation? If you do, how many calories is the conversion? In other words, what is the calorie conversion of flour to glucose, or a sweet potato to glucose, and how do you include these calories in the original equation?0 -
I do not agree a calorie is a calorie. A calorie from glucose eaten is very efficiently used as energy by body. A calorie eaten from a complex carb must be converted (i.e. energy spent) to a form where it can be used as energy. Thus, if you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 efficient calories- maintain weight. If you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 calories that are not efficient, must be converted, there will be a calorie deficit for the energy of conversion-i.e. weight loss.
Then you are not expending 2000 calories if you are treating the energy cost of processing different substrates as something occuring in addition to that 2000 calorie expense. This energy cost is included in the energy-out part of the equation.
Still do not agree. Sitting still for 24 hours the person burns 2000 calories, and eats only 2000 calories of glucose which has no conversion calories, thus, the person burns 2000 calories and eats 2000 calories- maintain weight.
Now the person expending 2000 calories sitting still eats 2000 calories of sweet potato which requires energy (calories) to convert to glucose. Now the calories expended are 2000 plus some unknown amount of conversion energy (calories). The calorie deficit (weight loss) will be the amount of conversion energy calories.
How do you include the "conversion" calories in the original equation? If you do, how many calories is the conversion? In other words, what is the calorie conversion of flour to glucose, or a sweet potato to glucose, and how do you include these calories in the original equation?
2000 calories of sweet potatoes? WTH kind of fad diet is that? A crazy one, for sure.
Your diet is the intake. Your lifestyle is the output. For most people, the input is easy to control, and the output is the hard part. For others, it's vice versa. But just because you are taller than me, doesn't mean the value of an inch is different for you than me. When you speak of how our bodies treat different foods differently, you are speaking of *NUTRIENTS* not calories.0 -
Saying a calorie isn't a calorie is just like saying a pound isn't a pound. YES IT IS! A calorie is a unit of measurement - nothing more, nothing less. Specifically, a calorie is the amount of energy required to heat 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celsius.
0 -
I do not agree a calorie is a calorie. A calorie from glucose eaten is very efficiently used as energy by body. A calorie eaten from a complex carb must be converted (i.e. energy spent) to a form where it can be used as energy. Thus, if you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 efficient calories- maintain weight. If you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 calories that are not efficient, must be converted, there will be a calorie deficit for the energy of conversion-i.e. weight loss.
Then you are not expending 2000 calories if you are treating the energy cost of processing different substrates as something occuring in addition to that 2000 calorie expense. This energy cost is included in the energy-out part of the equation.
Still do not agree. Sitting still for 24 hours the person burns 2000 calories, and eats only 2000 calories of glucose which has no conversion calories, thus, the person burns 2000 calories and eats 2000 calories- maintain weight.
Now the person expending 2000 calories sitting still eats 2000 calories of sweet potato which requires energy (calories) to convert to glucose. Now the calories expended are 2000 plus some unknown amount of conversion energy (calories). The calorie deficit (weight loss) will be the amount of conversion energy calories.
How do you include the "conversion" calories in the original equation? If you do, how many calories is the conversion? In other words, what is the calorie conversion of flour to glucose, or a sweet potato to glucose, and how do you include these calories in the original equation?
2000 calories of sweet potatoes? WTH kind of fad diet is that? A crazy one, for sure.
Your diet is the intake. Your lifestyle is the output. For most people, the input is easy to control, and the output is the hard part. For others, it's vice versa. But just because you are taller than me, doesn't mean the value of an inch is different for you than me. When you speak of how our bodies treat different foods differently, you are speaking of *NUTRIENTS* not calories.
Try to make an argument without the personal attack.
I used sweet potato as an example, not actual diet.
Not talking about nutrients.
We list foods in our diary and they logged based on "calories" to help us figure out a deficit to lose weight (if you want to lose weight), i.e calories burned greater than caloric intake (not calories consumed) is weight loss. For example, food calories listed in the diary are the calories of the food as it is consumed, i.e. they are set on fire and the energy released is measured using a defined amount of water. Thus, the diary lists the caloric value of the food as it is consumed, not the actual caloric value of the food after it has been converted to a usable form. The amount of energy to convert the consumed food to a usable form varies greatly for the different foods. The caloric value of glucose is very close or the same as the caloric value of that food in its usable form. However, a the caloric value of a sweet potato consumed is significantly higher than the caloric value of the that food in its usable form (i.e. converted to glucose, etc.).0 -
I do not agree a calorie is a calorie. A calorie from glucose eaten is very efficiently used as energy by body. A calorie eaten from a complex carb must be converted (i.e. energy spent) to a form where it can be used as energy. Thus, if you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 efficient calories- maintain weight. If you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 calories that are not efficient, must be converted, there will be a calorie deficit for the energy of conversion-i.e. weight loss.
Then you are not expending 2000 calories if you are treating the energy cost of processing different substrates as something occuring in addition to that 2000 calorie expense. This energy cost is included in the energy-out part of the equation.
Still do not agree. Sitting still for 24 hours the person burns 2000 calories, and eats only 2000 calories of glucose which has no conversion calories, thus, the person burns 2000 calories and eats 2000 calories- maintain weight.
Now the person expending 2000 calories sitting still eats 2000 calories of sweet potato which requires energy (calories) to convert to glucose. Now the calories expended are 2000 plus some unknown amount of conversion energy (calories). The calorie deficit (weight loss) will be the amount of conversion energy calories.
How do you include the "conversion" calories in the original equation? If you do, how many calories is the conversion? In other words, what is the calorie conversion of flour to glucose, or a sweet potato to glucose, and how do you include these calories in the original equation?
It's called diet induced thermogenesis and it's literally part of "energy out". It is well known that there is an energy cost to break down food into usable components/waste. For example it's often claimed that very high protein diets will create greater energy expenditure than a very high carbohydrate diet due to diet induced thermogenesis. (The "energy cost" to break down proteins is typically higher per calorie than carbohydrate for example).
Nothing you are saying is violating energy in/energy out conceptually. You are discussing concepts that are essentially correct (they exist), they are just already accounted for in the energy out side of things.0 -
It's proof that his method works for him. :-)Good for you for losing weight but this is not "proof" of anything and is bad science.
Personally, I don't have a problem with sugar. I dropped three dress sizes in 12 weeks eating ice cream every Friday, treats when I wanted them and at least five servings of fruit every single day.0 -
Thanks for sharing this. Sugar is definitely my downfall. All the best with your weightloss
0 -
I do not agree a calorie is a calorie. A calorie from glucose eaten is very efficiently used as energy by body. A calorie eaten from a complex carb must be converted (i.e. energy spent) to a form where it can be used as energy. Thus, if you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 efficient calories- maintain weight. If you expend 2000 calories and eat 2000 calories that are not efficient, must be converted, there will be a calorie deficit for the energy of conversion-i.e. weight loss.
Then you are not expending 2000 calories if you are treating the energy cost of processing different substrates as something occuring in addition to that 2000 calorie expense. This energy cost is included in the energy-out part of the equation.
Still do not agree. Sitting still for 24 hours the person burns 2000 calories, and eats only 2000 calories of glucose which has no conversion calories, thus, the person burns 2000 calories and eats 2000 calories- maintain weight.
Now the person expending 2000 calories sitting still eats 2000 calories of sweet potato which requires energy (calories) to convert to glucose. Now the calories expended are 2000 plus some unknown amount of conversion energy (calories). The calorie deficit (weight loss) will be the amount of conversion energy calories.
How do you include the "conversion" calories in the original equation? If you do, how many calories is the conversion? In other words, what is the calorie conversion of flour to glucose, or a sweet potato to glucose, and how do you include these calories in the original equation?
It's called diet induced thermogenesis and it's literally part of "energy out". It is well known that there is an energy cost to break down food into usable components/waste. For example it's often claimed that very high protein diets will create greater energy expenditure than a very high carbohydrate diet due to diet induced thermogenesis. (The "energy cost" to break down proteins is typically higher per calorie than carbohydrate for example).
Nothing you are saying is violating energy in/energy out conceptually. You are discussing concepts that are essentially correct, they are just already accounted for in the energy out side of things.
I think the calories listed in the diary do not account for the energy of conversion. If you eat foods that require very little energy conversion (sugar), then the calories consumed listed in the food diary will be close. However, if you consume foods that require a significant amount of energy to convert the food to a usable form, then the calories listed in the food diary will be low (or conversely the calories burned will be low because they will not include this energy of conversion).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions