A calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie

Does this also mean that the mile I ran isn't a mile isn't a mile????? :sad:

A mile is just a unit of measure, but conditions present during the the course of traveling the mile are relevant. Would you perform identically for running a mile ran on a treadmill vs on the street vs up the side of a hill vs through snow vs on the beach? Does a mile ran at 10,000 feet of elevation require the same effort as one ran at sea level? A calorie is also just a unit of measure, just like a mile, and stripping away all of the other factors associated with a measurement is a simplistic way to look at a very complex process.

I tend to agree that A calorie is a calorie is ultimately an oversimplification; however, it is still overwhelmingly the largest part of the equation and what the vast majority of people should be putting their energy into controlling (followed very closely by something resembling a balanced and nutritious diet).

The problem with these kinds of threads and discussions is that they always go into these extremes...90% of calories coming from carbs...30% of calories coming from added sugar or whatever...basically extremes that don't really exist in the real world and ones that, if they did, would be very valid concerns.

The reality is that someone eating a decently balanced diet with adequate nutrition with consumption below what would be required to maintain is going to lose weight and in that sense, for the most part, a calorie is a calorie and that's what the average Joe/Jane trying to lose a little weight and getting some fitness should put the vast majority of the efforts into.

Are we really supposed to be surprised that when you take one macronutrient to a ridiculous extreme and keep the other two at 5% calorie intake each that it will start to mess with your body? This is ESPECIALLY true when you deprive your body of protein and fat, the 2 most important macros. At that point you're starting to play around with actual insulin resistance issues and all the normal rules go out the window. If you're using calorie restriction with any sort of sensible macronutrient breakdown, then you will have the weight loss that you want. If you take anything to extreme, the normal rules become distorted.

The reason that is interesting is because it shows that the macronutrient composition does indeed play a role. While I agree that extremes are not the best for defining optimal, they do show that there is indeed an effect. But I think this should be used as a guide and not a proof.

I don't think anyone would argue that the composition of a calorie doesn't matter. I have never heard that debated I don't guess. In the end, a calorie is still just a calorie.

You haven't been around here long then. Anyone who even remotely suggests that what one eats matters (macro ratio vs individual physiology and metabolic issues) gets flamed from a thousand directions by the it's "only calories in/calories out" crowd. As if the human body is such a simple system and has no strategies for avoiding starvation or obesity... (I know my ancestors weren't calculating every calorie that went in their mouths AND they never got obese AND they weren't all athletes.)

so you know what every single one of your ancestors ate and you know that none of them were obese...impressive...

another brilliant contribution! thanks dude! welcome to the thread! :flowerforyou:

All I know is that I seem to lose weight no matter *what* I eat, so long as I eat a caloric deficit. I also know, however, that I FEEL a ton better when I'm eating healthy foods and not just getting my caloric intake from candy bars. I have more energy, get sick less frequently, am more patient, and my stomach doesn't gurgle and feel generally angry. So, yes, if my goal is to lose weight, I'll eat whatever I darn well please and ONLY pay attention to calories (a calorie is a calorie is a calorie). If, on the other hand, I want to FEEL good, I better eat foods that help my body function better (physically / psychologically / emotionally etc).

Acg67 posted the following in this topic, did anyone read it?

Increasing Protein, or Decreasing Carbohydrate…Which Gives You a Metabolic Advantage?

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285

It's conclusions were:
"The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that there is no metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate intake that is independent of a high protein intake. There is a metabolic advantage to a high protein diet, which will increase the calories you burn by 80-100 calories per day. There is also a dramatic satiety advantage to a high protein intake. A low carbohydrate intake (low enough to cause ketosis) can increase this satiety advantage, but individual responses will vary. The best dietary approach for you will depend upon a variety of factors."

Thoughts?

When compared to the rest of the literature on the subject, esp studies controlling both calories and protein, there is not significantly different fat loss between low carb/keto diets and other higher carb diets

If you could point me those papers I would really appreciate it! Again, trying to address anything that would require further research. So far I'm finding that there is a sig fat loss. Every other study I have read has speculated via computer predictions, or has evaluated its subject long term. Those that have done long term still see the most rapid decline in adiposity in the high fat diet subjects, but then the carb one eventually caught up. Which doesn't mean that the high fat is useless, it could still benefit people who need to get in shape ASAP.

Presence or absence of carbohydrates and the proportion of fat in a high-protein diet affect appetite suppression but not energy expenditure in normal-weight human subjects fed in energy balance

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/login;jsessionid=B69AFF098E076B189F25B781980BD018.journals

Here is a write up of that study

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285

Here's a bunch of papers listed

http://evilcyber.com/losing-weight/low-carb-keto-diet/

A low carbohydrate intake (low enough to cause ketosis) can increase this satiety advantage, but individual responses will vary. The best dietary approach for you will depend upon a variety of factors."

Thoughts?

NO. NO NO NO NO NO!

WE MUST HAZ A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL SOLUTION.

CLAIMING "IT'S DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE" WILL NEVER FLY.

All I know is that I seem to lose weight no matter *what* I eat, so long as I eat a caloric deficit. I also know, however, that I FEEL a ton better when I'm eating healthy foods and not just getting my caloric intake from candy bars. I have more energy, get sick less frequently, am more patient, and my stomach doesn't gurgle and feel generally angry. So, yes, if my goal is to lose weight, I'll eat whatever I darn well please and ONLY pay attention to calories (a calorie is a calorie is a calorie). If, on the other hand, I want to FEEL good, I better eat foods that help my body function better (physically / psychologically / emotionally etc).

I would think you would absolutely feel crappy if you got all your calories from candy bars. I can't believe you were willing to try that.

Hello,

I would have run the comparison using same Low Cal ( 1200 ) parameter but one group with Low Fat content and one group with High Fat content and see what the result would be.
I did not go through all the papers but from the summary it seems apples to oranges rather than true comparison.

Acg67 posted the following in this topic, did anyone read it?

Increasing Protein, or Decreasing Carbohydrate…Which Gives You a Metabolic Advantage?

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285

It's conclusions were:
"The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that there is no metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate intake that is independent of a high protein intake. There is a metabolic advantage to a high protein diet, which will increase the calories you burn by 80-100 calories per day. There is also a dramatic satiety advantage to a high protein intake. A low carbohydrate intake (low enough to cause ketosis) can increase this satiety advantage, but individual responses will vary. The best dietary approach for you will depend upon a variety of factors."

Thoughts?

When compared to the rest of the literature on the subject, esp studies controlling both calories and protein, there is not significantly different fat loss between low carb/keto diets and other higher carb diets

If you could point me those papers I would really appreciate it! Again, trying to address anything that would require further research. So far I'm finding that there is a sig fat loss. Every other study I have read has speculated via computer predictions, or has evaluated its subject long term. Those that have done long term still see the most rapid decline in adiposity in the high fat diet subjects, but then the carb one eventually caught up. Which doesn't mean that the high fat is useless, it could still benefit people who need to get in shape ASAP.

Presence or absence of carbohydrates and the proportion of fat in a high-protein diet affect appetite suppression but not energy expenditure in normal-weight human subjects fed in energy balance

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/login;jsessionid=B69AFF098E076B189F25B781980BD018.journals

Here is a write up of that study

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285

Here's a bunch of papers listed

http://evilcyber.com/losing-weight/low-carb-keto-diet/

Thoughts are that based on MFP rules that should be another thread.

I concur it should get it's own thread, but it's also related to this topic and was posted here. It does support the OP topic "A calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie." It appeared to be ignored. The thread is focusing on KCAL=KCAL argument when this study and it's related studies indicate cal composition may matter.

40% Carbs, 30% protein, 30% Fat burns more calories than a no carb diet according to the study and the other studies referenced support higher protein diets burn more calories.

Take away to me is the body does not treat calories the same. News to me based on the KCAL=KCAL argument. I just started this calorie trip and forum interaction in the last year so my apologies if it is truly a hijack.

so I see we are debating this for the billionth time....

I guess this one never gets old..so in...

but you already posted once in this thread... are you in for the second time?

Winner!

so I see we are debating this for the billionth time....

I guess this one never gets old..so in...

but you already posted once in this thread... are you in for the second time?

yes, but my first attempt was non-committal. I am now committed...

oh thank god.

so I see we are debating this for the billionth time....

I guess this one never gets old..so in...

but you already posted once in this thread... are you in for the second time?

yes, but my first attempt was non-committal. I am now committed...

oh thank god.

That's what I say, I'm always happier when ndj is committed to a thread.

All I know is that I seem to lose weight no matter *what* I eat, so long as I eat a caloric deficit. I also know, however, that I FEEL a ton better when I'm eating healthy foods and not just getting my caloric intake from candy bars. I have more energy, get sick less frequently, am more patient, and my stomach doesn't gurgle and feel generally angry. So, yes, if my goal is to lose weight, I'll eat whatever I darn well please and ONLY pay attention to calories (a calorie is a calorie is a calorie). If, on the other hand, I want to FEEL good, I better eat foods that help my body function better (physically / psychologically / emotionally etc).

I feel really good when I eat a candy bar. I only eat a small amount of one once in a while and I get a great deal of enjoyment from it.

Oh, me too!! I have some form of "dessert" almost every night - whether it be a small candy bar, or a cookie or whatever... I just meant, if that's ALL I ate, even if I was in a calorie deficit, I'd be losing weight but feel like garbage! I am a strong advocate of sweets (in moderation!).

Very interesting read so thanks for sharing. That fits with the two doctors and certified nutritionist who told me I should be eating low carb. I'm insulin resistant though so maybe that wouldn't be the best recommendation for everyone, but based on that article it certainly looks like anyone who is actively trying to lose weight should be low carb at least part of the time. Perhaps try carb cycling? (Google it) Carbs are frequently made up of highly-processed foods that we probably shouldn't be eating anyway.

BTW I probably won't be checking back to see if anyone actually responds to this so if you have a negative comment to make then don't bother, because I won't see it.