Can people process "more" of certain macros than others?

FaithfulJewel
FaithfulJewel Posts: 177 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Uhh, yeah, I'm probably wording this wrong... sorry in advance.

So my boyfriend and I were talking last night and he believes that certain people, due to genetics or hormones or whatnot, can absorb more calories from certain things than others (from fat, protein and carbs).

His thinking is that while 2 people may eat the same things and be the same weight and such, at the end of a fixed period of time, one person will have gained/lost more weight due to their ability to take more calories or nutrients from a food source (some people put more weight on when exposed to carbohydrates, for example).

I admit that calories aren't an exact thing, as setting things on fire doesn't really fully equate to how the body takes it all in, but I would say it's accurate enough and that everyone processes different macros to within a certain amount of each other (like someone might excrete 5% more from carbs than someone else) so, at the end of a fixed period of time, there'd be maybe a 10% difference in numbers.

But he thinks it's much more than this. I disagree, thinking it's basic calories in vs calories out, then a lot of psychology and lifestyle as to what forms of weight loss/gain work for people. I referenced the twinkie diet in response to something else... I found it relevant to the discussion at the time!

Does anyone know, or have a handy link to some studies anywhere? It was an interesting discussion and I will happily concede defeat if what he believes is correct!

Having some other opinions would be lovely :)

Replies

  • Chrisparadise579
    Chrisparadise579 Posts: 411 Member
    You're both correct in ways. While it is true that some people can tolerate macros differently and different calorie levels, most people tend to see their metabolism as a predetermined thing, when in reality our metabolisms are constntly changing and its better to think of them the same way we see a muscle. You can actually train your metabolism to tolerate higher calorie levels and different macro levels over a suprisingly short period of time and still lose weight. BUT a calorie is not just a calorie and the macros do matter, mostly because of the way they are digested and the role they play in our bodies, but typically higher protein levels and lower fat and carb levels are best for weight loss
  • aeb09
    aeb09 Posts: 424 Member
    This is speaking for myself only: because of medical reasons, basic "calories in, calories out" does not work for me. My macros the last six months have been 70% fat, 25% protein, 5% carbs (keto) and I've lost 70 pounds. For most people, CICO works just fine. I'm adding this link just for info, although I disagree with the title because, obviously, plenty of people on MFP have lost a lot of weight just following CICO. http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/

    Bottom line, I think there is no one-size-fits-all answer for everyone. I think the majority of people could follow CICO and do a great job but there are people, like me, that cannot. I've luckily found what works for me and still count calories (coming in at a deficit daily), so it's a mix of the two I guess.
  • FaithfulJewel
    FaithfulJewel Posts: 177 Member
    A tangible example (to me) the boyfriend used was this.

    He is at the bottom of his BMI for a healthy weight, and a friend we know isn't. If they both ate the same amounts of the same food (as they pretty much did), the one person would maintain or lose weight, while the other person would gain weight.

    My response to this was that people aren't usually aware of what they are eating; for those underweight, they might think they're eating more calories than they are, and the opposite for those who are overweight*.

    So, can I ask, why are there different emphasises on different macro ratios? If you eat "too much" protein (no comment :P ) but are still under your calories for maintenance, you will lose weight? My boyfriend possibly thinks (he wasn't hugely clear on this point) that you would *gain* weight from this, because you have more protein in your system than your body needs.

    I also am not entirely clear on low-carb for those who are insulin resistant working better than moderate or high carb amounts, I apologise. I will have a look at that link, thank you aeb09.

    I did say that different things work for different people (vegetarian/vegan is a major example) but, as mentioned, I put that down to psychology and lifestyle for 95% of people rather than genetics.


    * I tallied up calories of a friend's meals in one day in my head... he was guessing he was on about 3000kcals a day and, admittedly we were away for the weekend, but I got closer to 4500kcals - I have no doubt that I was exactly the same before I started using MFP
  • aeb09
    aeb09 Posts: 424 Member
    I also am not entirely clear on low-carb for those who are insulin resistant working better than moderate or high carb amounts, I apologise.

    I have severe PCOS (very insulin resistant) which is why I started keto. Blood sugar spikes in everyone when they eat high carb/sugary foods. To move this sugar from the bloodstream into cells for energy, insulin is released from the pancreas. When someone is insulin resistant, over time it requires more and more insulin in order to move the sugar from the bloodstream. Eventually the pancreas is pumping an excessive amount of insulin but it is not moving the sugar; the person's blood sugar becomes too high, which is how someone develops Type 2. By eating very low carb, I am eating foods that do not trigger spikes in my blood sugar, therefore training my body to need less insulin as well. Most days I eat around (or under) 5g of sugar total (natural or processed) and under 20g total carbs per day. This is the only thing that has ever worked for me, as I said before, and I'm so grateful I found it.

    I hope that helps.
  • TMM211073
    TMM211073 Posts: 153 Member
    I am not a die hard believer in CICO because it isn't as cut & dry as that - but there is a lot to be said in favour of it, because consistantly eating more than I'm burning got me to 145.6kg - 331lb - 22st 13lb....

    I have Coeliacs & one thing is for sure, my body can't absorb too much protein (as well as gluten); if I meet my macros every day for a week, my digestive system goes into meltdown.... Stomach cramps, constipation, wind (up & down) so I keep an eye on them & do make an effort to get a good balance, but I have to be extremely careful WHERE my protein comes from - too many eggs, too much meat, too many nuts with do me & anyone breathing the same air as me absolutely no favours & don't even get me started in soya - that is like poison to my digestive system....

    Sometimes it's a wonder that I ever managed to lose over half my body weight lol

    xXx
  • Sam_I_Am77
    Sam_I_Am77 Posts: 2,093 Member
    The basis of the conversation is correct. Some people are "metabolicaly flexible" and can efficiently use energy from fats and carbohydrates, while others are not as flexible. It can be adjusted over time and the amount of time it takes really depends on the individual, there is no set time; Individualization is a very real thing. You'll want to look-up peer reviewed studies related to "Metabolic Adaptation", "Flexible Dieting", "Reverse Dieting". Enjoy the reading. :)
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • AZKristi
    AZKristi Posts: 1,801 Member
    A tangible example (to me) the boyfriend used was this.

    He is at the bottom of his BMI for a healthy weight, and a friend we know isn't. If they both ate the same amounts of the same food (as they pretty much did), the one person would maintain or lose weight, while the other person would gain weight.


    This isn't because they get different numbers of calories from food. It is because the heavier person has a higher BMR than the smaller person, thus burning more calories at rest.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Metabolisms do change, according to conditions. It's not so much that we process foods differently, we just burn fewer or more calories based on conditions. It can change due to calorie levels, temperature, stress, drugs, illnesses.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • cajuntank
    cajuntank Posts: 924 Member
    Some of the posters are confusing calories, macros, and allergies. Just because you are allergic to a food item, does not mean a calorie is not a calorie and just because you eat one macro more than another (robbing Peter to pay Paul), it's still about the overal amount of calories. If you ate an apple (an analogy for a calorie), but did not eat the skin (analogy for carb), you still ate an apple (again a calorie but the remaining apple left an analogy for protein and fat). You ate slightly less of an apple and you did not get the full benefit of the added fiber and micronutrients, etc... But it was still an apple (again, analogy for calorie) and you ate a little less of it. Overal calories dictate weight loss and weight gain no matter the make up (macros) of those calories.

    To the OP's question. Yes, I believe due to people's genetics, they are able to utilize calories (calories are made up of macros) better than others...so some people can add muscle easier and some are more predisposed to add fat. There is a certain % of this that we can influence, but the rest is genetics. Google Lyle McDonald and P Ratio.
  • FaithfulJewel
    FaithfulJewel Posts: 177 Member
    A tangible example (to me) the boyfriend used was this.

    He is at the bottom of his BMI for a healthy weight, and a friend we know isn't. If they both ate the same amounts of the same food (as they pretty much did), the one person would maintain or lose weight, while the other person would gain weight.


    This isn't because they get different numbers of calories from food. It is because the heavier person has a higher BMR than the smaller person, thus burning more calories at rest.

    My response exactly :)


    Thanks to everyone. So if 2 people ate 1000kcals of protein each, the same calorie amounts (from the same sources), would one take in more calories from that protein than the other? (one of the full 1000kcals, one of 500kcals?)

    I will look into the studies mentioned, thank you.
  • Sam_I_Am77
    Sam_I_Am77 Posts: 2,093 Member
    Thanks to everyone. So if 2 people ate 1000kcals of protein each, the same calorie amounts (from the same sources), would one take in more calories from that protein than the other? (one of the full 1000kcals, one of 500kcals?)

    I will look into the studies mentioned, thank you.

    I'm not sure if I understand your question. You say "kcals" above as your method of measurement which is fine, but then you ask if "one would take in more calories from that protein than the other?" I'm confused about that part. 1,000kcal's is 1,000kcals, so if you consume 1,000kcals then you consume 1,000kcals.Remember that 1-gram of protein = 4 calories, period. I'm not aware of any protein sources that vary from that measurement. Perhaps the more accurate question would be is that 1,000kcals appropriate for both individuals? 1,000kcals of protein is approximately 250grams of protein. If you have an individual that is at or close to 250, then it's probably not bad. But if that individual is under 200lbs then it's probably a bit extreme.

    RE "Calorie is a calorie": In many ways that is very true but for your overall health and even healthy hormone function, one should be more mindful of their regular food selection. Of course nobody, and nor should they, is going to be perfect 100% of the time.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    There is some some belief that there are variations in the efficiency of gut microflora across people which might affect calorie intake/use. Maybe that's what he's thinking of.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    You're both correct in ways. While it is true that some people can tolerate macros differently and different calorie levels, most people tend to see their metabolism as a predetermined thing, when in reality our metabolisms are constntly changing and its better to think of them the same way we see a muscle. You can actually train your metabolism to tolerate higher calorie levels and different macro levels over a suprisingly short period of time and still lose weight. BUT a calorie is not just a calorie and the macros do matter, mostly because of the way they are digested and the role they play in our bodies, but typically higher protein levels and lower fat and carb levels are best for weight loss

    This is true, but metabolism only part of the story.

    Different people do absorb differing amounts of calories and nutritients from food. Some people have to eat well beyond a normal amount of calories just to absorb enough to live. These are extreme cases, of course, but even in healthy people the amount of calories absorbed from identifcal foods may differ. This is why some people can eat a lot and not gain weight, even when they do little exercise. People usually credit a naturally fast metabolism, but often it's an absorption problem.
  • Sam_I_Am77
    Sam_I_Am77 Posts: 2,093 Member
    There is some some belief that there are variations in the efficiency of gut microflora across people which might affect calorie intake/use. Maybe that's what he's thinking of.

    I'm not quite sure what it is and I'm not sure that most true experts (PhD's in nutrition, biochemistry, etc.) fully understand why some people are more metabolically flexible than others either. It's a very interesting topic, but it is very true. One thing that is of particular interest are research related to metabolic adaptation and reverse-dieting.
  • Sam_I_Am77
    Sam_I_Am77 Posts: 2,093 Member
    This is why some people can eat a lot and not gain weight, even when they do little exercise. People usually credit a naturally fast metabolism, but often it's an absorption problem.

    What everybody really needs to understand is that when it comes down to it, weight management is very individualized. You can take two people of the same bodyweight and body fat and they both may need different calorie levels and even different macro-nutrient ratios. There are general rules that should be followed but generally those are starting-points and adjustments must be made as time goes on.
  • FredDoyle
    FredDoyle Posts: 2,272 Member
    Although I basically adhere to CICO thinking, I believe it is irrelevant to maintaining or losing weight for me.
    What I mean by this is that it is just a guideline. I count calories here to get a baseline only. I couldn't care less if they are called kcals or thingamabobs because it doesn't matter. kcals are handy since that is what most of our governments use.
    If I'm counting up to 2000 kcals per day and maintaining weight, I'll eat less to lose weight (or get more active).
    If I end up with some kind of a virus and not all my food is digested properly, and I'm constantly losing, I'll eat more. Same if my activity level goes up.
    In chemistry, an equation is said to be in equilibrium when as many reactions happen in each direction.
    Weight loss/gain and activity level are like this.
    If you want to change the outcome, tip the equation in either direction until you hit equilibrium again.
    So counting calories is meaningless in one way, but needed if we are to gauge where on the scale we want to head.
  • Sam_I_Am77
    Sam_I_Am77 Posts: 2,093 Member
    If you want to change the outcome, tip the equation in either direction until you hit equilibrium again.
    So counting calories is meaningless in one way, but needed if we are to gauge where on the scale we want to head.

    Very good point. Knowing your calories for "xyz" goal is important because if you don't have a target / baseline then you don't know what to be shooting for, it's good to have a roadmap. However at the same time, manipulation of those is kind of an on-going practice depending on what results the individual is seeing.
  • SweatLikeDog
    SweatLikeDog Posts: 320 Member
    This is the essence of the Metabolic Typing diet that came out a decade ago. Some people do well on low protein/high carb, some vice versa, and some in between. High carbs might aggravate blood sugar levels in some people more than others. The point is that nutritional recommendations and macro ratios are not one-size-fits-all.
  • 3laine75
    3laine75 Posts: 3,069 Member
    Thanks to everyone. So if 2 people ate 1000kcals of protein each, the same calorie amounts (from the same sources), would one take in more calories from that protein than the other? (one of the full 1000kcals, one of 500kcals?)

    I will look into the studies mentioned, thank you.

    I'm not sure if I understand your question. You say "kcals" above as your method of measurement which is fine, but then you ask if "one would take in more calories from that protein than the other?" I'm confused about that part. 1,000kcal's is 1,000kcals, so if you consume 1,000kcals then you consume 1,000kcals.Remember that 1-gram of protein = 4 calories, period. I'm not aware of any protein sources that vary from that measurement. Perhaps the more accurate question would be is that 1,000kcals appropriate for both individuals? 1,000kcals of protein is approximately 250grams of protein. If you have an individual that is at or close to 250, then it's probably not bad. But if that individual is under 200lbs then it's probably a bit extreme.

    RE "Calorie is a calorie": In many ways that is very true but for your overall health and even healthy hormone function, one should be more mindful of their regular food selection. Of course nobody, and nor should they, is going to be perfect 100% of the time.

    I'm going to have a wee stab at the question.

    One person won't 'get more' calories from the same amount of protein. A calorie is a unit of measurement. People's bodies will deal with that protein differently though. Google 'P-ratio'. The less bodyfat you have (and obviously some form of strength training would be involved - although I have heard of genetically gifted folks who can add muscle without it) the more protein you will be able to convert to muscle. This is one of the reasons it's better to bulk at a lower bf%. Don't know the whole scientific ins and outs of it but I'm sure I've read pieces by lyle McDonald and layne norton on it.

Categories