Good calories vs bad calories
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...
I didn't jump to it. I read it in your link. Do you think the conclusions in your linked study are incorrect?
Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
The weight loss had nothing to do with the calories and was likely due to satiety and compliance of the diets.
How that in any way "seems to validate the argument taht a calorie is not a calorie", I would need to ask a clairvoyant, because I'm drawing a blank here.
Context.
Which context? The difference had nothing to do with a calorie not being a calorie.
Their conclusion is "a calorie is a calorie because: well, duhhhhh."
Within the context of weight control. You know, the part you cut off my message when you quoted it.
It still had absolutely nothing to do with the calories as they implied a bigger than intended deficit was reached by eating less unintentionally through earlier satiety on one end or compliance issues on the other, not because of something to do with the calories in an isocaloric or even as this thread would be about, higher intake in the group that lost more.
So...
I think you need to read it again. It says they have no answer for the results.
"Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."
I really wish this research came complete with regular DEXA scans or similar body composition data. Weight on the scale is just too gross a measure for what people really want to know.
How much would you expect composition to change in 12 weeks while eating at a calorie deficit?
If you are doing it right, a lot, but that's not the point so much as trying to determine how much of the difference is do to LBM vs BF loss and determining if the loss is mostly LBM i.e. water and glycogen, vs BF%. I suspect that there is much more LBM lost in the low carb groups since they lose a lot of glycogen which binds 4g of water per g or glycogen.
My personal experience was losing over 30 pounds in 12 weeks with over 90% being fat. That's a substantial change in composition.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »byrdiegrrrl wrote: »I'm sorry to COMPLETLY DISAGREE with all of you 1) but "a calorie is a calorie" is FALSE. The body processes different foods completely differently which is why we eat (or should attempt to eat) a balanced diet. Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the body 2) which adds weight, 3) particularly around ones midsection. 4) Proteins are burned off/metabolized much differently and therefore don't make you gain weight the same way. 5) I challenge two people in this forum: One of you eat 1200 calories/day of fried foods, cheese, and simple carbs. The other eat 1400 calories/day of lean protein, vegetables, fruit and whole grains (6) keeping dairy and carbs to a minimum or completely out of your diet). Do this for a month and I would bet that the latter will see more of a significant body change than the other. Ready. Set. GO!
1) That's like saying one horsepower isn't one horsepower because 93 octane is better for your engine than 87.
2) no, eating more than you burn adds weight because your body stores extra calories as fat. Your body isn't going to store energy it needs just because sugar.
3) wrong again. Where fat is stored has nothing to do with what food the calories came from. It has everything to do with genetics. I gain all over my torso like my dad. My mom and sister gain around the middle. It just depends on you.
4) more falsehoods. Protein will be synthesized for muscle growth and/or retention but will also be broken down and burned as fuel just like carbs (including sugar) will and if you have an excess of calories from protein they will be stored as fat because that's what your body does with extra calories.
5) your challenge is silly. Of course the two participants would have different body compositions. That is not being contested. However, whoever has the biggest calorie deficit (not everyone has the same maintenance calorie needs btw so your idea of having them eat 1200 vs 1400 calories is improper execution of the test anyway) will lose the most weight. They may not look or feel the best but they will lose the most weight because science.
And finally...
6) dairy is quite good for you and need not be avoided.
So...
I am simultaneously mesmerized and repulsed by this gif...
Ok, that gif is creepy as ****. Why can't I look away?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »byrdiegrrrl wrote: »I'm sorry to COMPLETLY DISAGREE with all of you 1) but "a calorie is a calorie" is FALSE. The body processes different foods completely differently which is why we eat (or should attempt to eat) a balanced diet. Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the body 2) which adds weight, 3) particularly around ones midsection. 4) Proteins are burned off/metabolized much differently and therefore don't make you gain weight the same way. 5) I challenge two people in this forum: One of you eat 1200 calories/day of fried foods, cheese, and simple carbs. The other eat 1400 calories/day of lean protein, vegetables, fruit and whole grains (6) keeping dairy and carbs to a minimum or completely out of your diet). Do this for a month and I would bet that the latter will see more of a significant body change than the other. Ready. Set. GO!
1) That's like saying one horsepower isn't one horsepower because 93 octane is better for your engine than 87.
2) no, eating more than you burn adds weight because your body stores extra calories as fat. Your body isn't going to store energy it needs just because sugar.
3) wrong again. Where fat is stored has nothing to do with what food the calories came from. It has everything to do with genetics. I gain all over my torso like my dad. My mom and sister gain around the middle. It just depends on you.
4) more falsehoods. Protein will be synthesized for muscle growth and/or retention but will also be broken down and burned as fuel just like carbs (including sugar) will and if you have an excess of calories from protein they will be stored as fat because that's what your body does with extra calories.
5) your challenge is silly. Of course the two participants would have different body compositions. That is not being contested. However, whoever has the biggest calorie deficit (not everyone has the same maintenance calorie needs btw so your idea of having them eat 1200 vs 1400 calories is improper execution of the test anyway) will lose the most weight. They may not look or feel the best but they will lose the most weight because science.
And finally...
6) dairy is quite good for you and need not be avoided.
So...
I am simultaneously mesmerized and repulsed by this gif...
Ok, that gif is creepy as ****. Why can't I look away?
It's like a self-eating zombie or something.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »byrdiegrrrl wrote: »I'm sorry to COMPLETLY DISAGREE with all of you 1) but "a calorie is a calorie" is FALSE. The body processes different foods completely differently which is why we eat (or should attempt to eat) a balanced diet. Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the body 2) which adds weight, 3) particularly around ones midsection. 4) Proteins are burned off/metabolized much differently and therefore don't make you gain weight the same way. 5) I challenge two people in this forum: One of you eat 1200 calories/day of fried foods, cheese, and simple carbs. The other eat 1400 calories/day of lean protein, vegetables, fruit and whole grains (6) keeping dairy and carbs to a minimum or completely out of your diet). Do this for a month and I would bet that the latter will see more of a significant body change than the other. Ready. Set. GO!
1) That's like saying one horsepower isn't one horsepower because 93 octane is better for your engine than 87.
2) no, eating more than you burn adds weight because your body stores extra calories as fat. Your body isn't going to store energy it needs just because sugar.
3) wrong again. Where fat is stored has nothing to do with what food the calories came from. It has everything to do with genetics. I gain all over my torso like my dad. My mom and sister gain around the middle. It just depends on you.
4) more falsehoods. Protein will be synthesized for muscle growth and/or retention but will also be broken down and burned as fuel just like carbs (including sugar) will and if you have an excess of calories from protein they will be stored as fat because that's what your body does with extra calories.
5) your challenge is silly. Of course the two participants would have different body compositions. That is not being contested. However, whoever has the biggest calorie deficit (not everyone has the same maintenance calorie needs btw so your idea of having them eat 1200 vs 1400 calories is improper execution of the test anyway) will lose the most weight. They may not look or feel the best but they will lose the most weight because science.
And finally...
6) dairy is quite good for you and need not be avoided.
So...
I am simultaneously mesmerized and repulsed by this gif...
I love the tiny smile at the end... it gets me every time.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...
I didn't jump to it. I read it in your link. Do you think the conclusions in your linked study are incorrect?
Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
The weight loss had nothing to do with the calories and was likely due to satiety and compliance of the diets.
How that in any way "seems to validate the argument taht a calorie is not a calorie", I would need to ask a clairvoyant, because I'm drawing a blank here.
Context.
Which context? The difference had nothing to do with a calorie not being a calorie.
Their conclusion is "a calorie is a calorie because: well, duhhhhh."
Within the context of weight control. You know, the part you cut off my message when you quoted it.
It still had absolutely nothing to do with the calories as they implied a bigger than intended deficit was reached by eating less unintentionally through earlier satiety on one end or compliance issues on the other, not because of something to do with the calories in an isocaloric or even as this thread would be about, higher intake in the group that lost more.
So...
I think you need to read it again. It says they have no answer for the results.
"Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."
I really wish this research came complete with regular DEXA scans or similar body composition data. Weight on the scale is just too gross a measure for what people really want to know.
How much would you expect composition to change in 12 weeks while eating at a calorie deficit?
If you are doing it right, a lot, but that's not the point so much as trying to determine how much of the difference is do to LBM vs BF loss and determining if the loss is mostly LBM i.e. water and glycogen, vs BF%. I suspect that there is much more LBM lost in the low carb groups since they lose a lot of glycogen which binds 4g of water per g or glycogen.
My personal experience was losing over 30 pounds in 12 weeks with over 90% being fat. That's a substantial change in composition.
Agreed. And most likely not at all typical. But again the results were not limited to low carb.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...
I didn't jump to it. I read it in your link. Do you think the conclusions in your linked study are incorrect?
Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
The weight loss had nothing to do with the calories and was likely due to satiety and compliance of the diets.
How that in any way "seems to validate the argument taht a calorie is not a calorie", I would need to ask a clairvoyant, because I'm drawing a blank here.
Context.
Which context? The difference had nothing to do with a calorie not being a calorie.
Their conclusion is "a calorie is a calorie because: well, duhhhhh."
Within the context of weight control. You know, the part you cut off my message when you quoted it.
It still had absolutely nothing to do with the calories as they implied a bigger than intended deficit was reached by eating less unintentionally through earlier satiety on one end or compliance issues on the other, not because of something to do with the calories in an isocaloric or even as this thread would be about, higher intake in the group that lost more.
So...
I think you need to read it again. It says they have no answer for the results.
"Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."
They also said: "Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss." and are aware that energy can't disappear. Which only leaves "Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate. "
They know it's not because of less absorbed or more expended. They know energy can't disappear.
This only leaves actually eating less.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...
I didn't jump to it. I read it in your link. Do you think the conclusions in your linked study are incorrect?
Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
The weight loss had nothing to do with the calories and was likely due to satiety and compliance of the diets.
How that in any way "seems to validate the argument taht a calorie is not a calorie", I would need to ask a clairvoyant, because I'm drawing a blank here.
Context.
Which context? The difference had nothing to do with a calorie not being a calorie.
Their conclusion is "a calorie is a calorie because: well, duhhhhh."
Within the context of weight control. You know, the part you cut off my message when you quoted it.
It still had absolutely nothing to do with the calories as they implied a bigger than intended deficit was reached by eating less unintentionally through earlier satiety on one end or compliance issues on the other, not because of something to do with the calories in an isocaloric or even as this thread would be about, higher intake in the group that lost more.
So...
I think you need to read it again. It says they have no answer for the results.
"Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."
They also said: "Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss." and are aware that energy can't disappear. Which only leaves "Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate. "
They know it's not because of less absorbed or more expended. They know energy can't disappear.
This only leaves actually eating less.
That is not what it says. If they know what it is, why would further research be needed. It repeatedly says they can't explain the results.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...
I didn't jump to it. I read it in your link. Do you think the conclusions in your linked study are incorrect?
Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
The weight loss had nothing to do with the calories and was likely due to satiety and compliance of the diets.
How that in any way "seems to validate the argument taht a calorie is not a calorie", I would need to ask a clairvoyant, because I'm drawing a blank here.
Context.
Which context? The difference had nothing to do with a calorie not being a calorie.
Their conclusion is "a calorie is a calorie because: well, duhhhhh."
Within the context of weight control. You know, the part you cut off my message when you quoted it.
It still had absolutely nothing to do with the calories as they implied a bigger than intended deficit was reached by eating less unintentionally through earlier satiety on one end or compliance issues on the other, not because of something to do with the calories in an isocaloric or even as this thread would be about, higher intake in the group that lost more.
So...
I think you need to read it again. It says they have no answer for the results.
"Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."
They also said: "Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss." and are aware that energy can't disappear. Which only leaves "Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate. "
They know it's not because of less absorbed or more expended. They know energy can't disappear.
This only leaves actually eating less.
That is not what it says. If they know what it is, why would further research be needed. It repeatedly says they can't explain the results.
Let's play how often can you ignore the same part of the same quote as if it wasn't there?
Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss.
This part says that differences in absorption and changes in expenditure don't sufficiently account for the differences. ("a calorie is a calorie")
Everyone knows energy can't disappear, that's the basic law of physics, so they know if it was eaten it has to go somewhere. If it is not not absorbed and not balanced out by higher expenditure it would stay in the body if it was eaten.
Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed
In this part they specifically go in the direction of possible extra waterweight/lean mass losses (composition of weight loss), eating less because of satiety or eating more because of compliance issues.
They know what it's not so they push in the direction of further research for what it could be.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...
I didn't jump to it. I read it in your link. Do you think the conclusions in your linked study are incorrect?
Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
The weight loss had nothing to do with the calories and was likely due to satiety and compliance of the diets.
How that in any way "seems to validate the argument taht a calorie is not a calorie", I would need to ask a clairvoyant, because I'm drawing a blank here.
Context.
Which context? The difference had nothing to do with a calorie not being a calorie.
Their conclusion is "a calorie is a calorie because: well, duhhhhh."
Within the context of weight control. You know, the part you cut off my message when you quoted it.
It still had absolutely nothing to do with the calories as they implied a bigger than intended deficit was reached by eating less unintentionally through earlier satiety on one end or compliance issues on the other, not because of something to do with the calories in an isocaloric or even as this thread would be about, higher intake in the group that lost more.
So...
I think you need to read it again. It says they have no answer for the results.
"Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."
They also said: "Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss." and are aware that energy can't disappear. Which only leaves "Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate. "
They know it's not because of less absorbed or more expended. They know energy can't disappear.
This only leaves actually eating less.
That is not what it says. If they know what it is, why would further research be needed. It repeatedly says they can't explain the results.
Let's play how often can you ignore the same part of the same quote as if it wasn't there?
Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss.
This part says that differences in absorption and changes in expenditure don't sufficiently account for the differences. ("a calorie is a calorie")
Everyone knows energy can't disappear, that's the basic law of physics, so they know if it was eaten it has to go somewhere. If it is not not absorbed and not balanced out by higher expenditure it would stay in the body if it was eaten.
Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed
In this part they specifically go in the direction of possible extra waterweight/lean mass losses (composition of weight loss), eating less because of satiety or eating more because of compliance issues.
They know what it's not so they push in the direction of further research for what it could be.
you are arguing with someone that does not care about facts, and is just arguing to argue....0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »You may have seen a story doing the rounds about a teacher who lost 56lb eating nothing but McDonalds? I thought it was quite appropriate for this discussion, so I'm just gonna leave this here as I think it sums up some of this debate perfectly, especially the sentence at the end. Link to the full article below.
"What did the experiment prove? That it’s acceptable to live off fast food? No. It reinforced what research and science has stated all along: caloric intake and expenditure are critical for weight loss and health.
Regardless of Cisna eating 540 straight meals at McDonald’s, his health markers improved. Here are the improvements he made in the first three months:
Cholesterol: started at 249 and lowered to 170
Triglycerides: from 156 to 80
LDL: from 170 to 113
Those are terrific improvements in 90 days and you cannot claim he’s not healthier as a result of the experiment.
And why are some people so upset? Because he “didn’t do enough” and should have eaten real foods? Come on, people. You’re missing the point entirely.
It likely would not have been practical for this gentleman to eat nothing but real food every day for every single meal without fail for six months straight.
People shouting that this doesn’t prove anything are missing the forest for the trees. How many millions of people in the United States alone are obese or overweight? If you think the answer is to tell everyone to trade their morning McDonald’s meal for a homemade omelet and cook dinner from scratch when they’re used to going out to eat is going to work … well … it hasn’t yet. And for most people it won’t.
Demonstrating, as Cisna did, that it’s possible to lose weight and improve your health eating McDonald’s provides real world application for many people.
Dr. Brad Schoenfeld said it well in response to criticism of the experiment:
“The point is to show that if you reduce calories below expenditure, you’ll lose weight regardless of (and despite) the nutritional components. I’ll also add the most important aspect of any diet is adherence. Sure, it’s nice to speak of ideals. But what good is giving someone a “healthy” nutritional approach if they don’t follow it?”
Well said, doc.
It’s not always about what’s “ideal”. It may have to be about what’s doable for the individual at first."
http://www.niashanks.com/teacher-lost-weight-eating-mcdonalds/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
And also see the Twinkie diet
I've never had a Twinkie in my life.
IMO...you're not missing much
They're nowhere near as good as a mint Oreo
Then I'm not even a little bit sorry for not having had one.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »skysiebaby wrote: »You may have seen a story doing the rounds about a teacher who lost 56lb eating nothing but McDonalds? I thought it was quite appropriate for this discussion, so I'm just gonna leave this here as I think it sums up some of this debate perfectly, especially the sentence at the end. Link to the full article below.
"What did the experiment prove? That it’s acceptable to live off fast food? No. It reinforced what research and science has stated all along: caloric intake and expenditure are critical for weight loss and health.
Regardless of Cisna eating 540 straight meals at McDonald’s, his health markers improved. Here are the improvements he made in the first three months:
Cholesterol: started at 249 and lowered to 170
Triglycerides: from 156 to 80
LDL: from 170 to 113
Those are terrific improvements in 90 days and you cannot claim he’s not healthier as a result of the experiment.
And why are some people so upset? Because he “didn’t do enough” and should have eaten real foods? Come on, people. You’re missing the point entirely.
It likely would not have been practical for this gentleman to eat nothing but real food every day for every single meal without fail for six months straight.
People shouting that this doesn’t prove anything are missing the forest for the trees. How many millions of people in the United States alone are obese or overweight? If you think the answer is to tell everyone to trade their morning McDonald’s meal for a homemade omelet and cook dinner from scratch when they’re used to going out to eat is going to work … well … it hasn’t yet. And for most people it won’t.
Demonstrating, as Cisna did, that it’s possible to lose weight and improve your health eating McDonald’s provides real world application for many people.
Dr. Brad Schoenfeld said it well in response to criticism of the experiment:
“The point is to show that if you reduce calories below expenditure, you’ll lose weight regardless of (and despite) the nutritional components. I’ll also add the most important aspect of any diet is adherence. Sure, it’s nice to speak of ideals. But what good is giving someone a “healthy” nutritional approach if they don’t follow it?”
Well said, doc.
It’s not always about what’s “ideal”. It may have to be about what’s doable for the individual at first."
http://www.niashanks.com/teacher-lost-weight-eating-mcdonalds/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
And also see the Twinkie diet
I've never had a Twinkie in my life.
IMO...you're not missing much
They're nowhere near as good as a mint Oreo
1) That's great, except I DESPISE mint. Don't know why, but I do.
2) I do love the vanilla Oreos though, those are awesome!
1) I started to offer a high five
2) I changed my mindCarlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I disagree with your assessment.
The foods one eats won't make a large difference but they can slightly affect your CICO levels, mainly CO.
I didn't say they wouldn't, just that the difference in CO is negligible.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...
I didn't jump to it. I read it in your link. Do you think the conclusions in your linked study are incorrect?
Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
The weight loss had nothing to do with the calories and was likely due to satiety and compliance of the diets.
How that in any way "seems to validate the argument taht a calorie is not a calorie", I would need to ask a clairvoyant, because I'm drawing a blank here.
Context.
Which context? The difference had nothing to do with a calorie not being a calorie.
Their conclusion is "a calorie is a calorie because: well, duhhhhh."
Within the context of weight control. You know, the part you cut off my message when you quoted it.
It still had absolutely nothing to do with the calories as they implied a bigger than intended deficit was reached by eating less unintentionally through earlier satiety on one end or compliance issues on the other, not because of something to do with the calories in an isocaloric or even as this thread would be about, higher intake in the group that lost more.
So...
I think you need to read it again. It says they have no answer for the results.
"Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."
They also said: "Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss." and are aware that energy can't disappear. Which only leaves "Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate. "
They know it's not because of less absorbed or more expended. They know energy can't disappear.
This only leaves actually eating less.
That is not what it says. If they know what it is, why would further research be needed. It repeatedly says they can't explain the results.
Let's play how often can you ignore the same part of the same quote as if it wasn't there?
Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss.
This part says that differences in absorption and changes in expenditure don't sufficiently account for the differences. ("a calorie is a calorie")
But here you are assuming that because they admit to not knowing why, it has to be differences in calorie amount consumed, right? Because they don't say that specifically. They say they don't know. And that's okay. If we knew everything about food and how our bodies use calories there would be no need for research.0 -
0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...
I didn't jump to it. I read it in your link. Do you think the conclusions in your linked study are incorrect?
Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
The weight loss had nothing to do with the calories and was likely due to satiety and compliance of the diets.
How that in any way "seems to validate the argument taht a calorie is not a calorie", I would need to ask a clairvoyant, because I'm drawing a blank here.
Context.
Which context? The difference had nothing to do with a calorie not being a calorie.
Their conclusion is "a calorie is a calorie because: well, duhhhhh."
Within the context of weight control. You know, the part you cut off my message when you quoted it.
It still had absolutely nothing to do with the calories as they implied a bigger than intended deficit was reached by eating less unintentionally through earlier satiety on one end or compliance issues on the other, not because of something to do with the calories in an isocaloric or even as this thread would be about, higher intake in the group that lost more.
So...
I think you need to read it again. It says they have no answer for the results.
"Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."
They also said: "Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss." and are aware that energy can't disappear. Which only leaves "Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate. "
They know it's not because of less absorbed or more expended. They know energy can't disappear.
This only leaves actually eating less.
That is not what it says. If they know what it is, why would further research be needed. It repeatedly says they can't explain the results.
Let's play how often can you ignore the same part of the same quote as if it wasn't there?
Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss.
This part says that differences in absorption and changes in expenditure don't sufficiently account for the differences. ("a calorie is a calorie")
But here you are assuming that because they admit to not knowing why, it has to be differences in calorie amount consumed, right? Because they don't say that specifically. They say they don't know. And that's okay. If we knew everything about food and how our bodies use calories there would be no need for research.
They know what it's not so they push in the direction of further research for what it could be.0 -
byrdiegrrrl wrote: »I'm sorry to COMPLETLY DISAGREE with all of you but "a calorie is a calorie" is FALSE. The body processes different foods completely differently which is why we eat (or should attempt to eat) a balanced diet. Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the body which adds weight, particularly around ones midsection. Proteins are burned off/metabolized much differently and therefore don't make you gain weight the same way. I challenge two people in this forum: One of you eat 1200 calories/day of fried foods, cheese, and simple carbs. The other eat 1400 calories/day of lean protein, vegetables, fruit and whole grains (keeping dairy and carbs to a minimum or completely out of your diet). Do this for a month and I would bet that the latter will see more of a significant body change than the other. Ready. Set. GO!
Sorry, but you have a complete and total misunderstanding of how the human metabolism works.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...
I didn't jump to it. I read it in your link. Do you think the conclusions in your linked study are incorrect?
Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
The weight loss had nothing to do with the calories and was likely due to satiety and compliance of the diets.
How that in any way "seems to validate the argument taht a calorie is not a calorie", I would need to ask a clairvoyant, because I'm drawing a blank here.
Context.
Which context? The difference had nothing to do with a calorie not being a calorie.
Their conclusion is "a calorie is a calorie because: well, duhhhhh."
Within the context of weight control. You know, the part you cut off my message when you quoted it.
It still had absolutely nothing to do with the calories as they implied a bigger than intended deficit was reached by eating less unintentionally through earlier satiety on one end or compliance issues on the other, not because of something to do with the calories in an isocaloric or even as this thread would be about, higher intake in the group that lost more.
So...
I think you need to read it again. It says they have no answer for the results.
"Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."
They also said: "Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss." and are aware that energy can't disappear. Which only leaves "Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate. "
They know it's not because of less absorbed or more expended. They know energy can't disappear.
This only leaves actually eating less.
That is not what it says. If they know what it is, why would further research be needed. It repeatedly says they can't explain the results.
Let's play how often can you ignore the same part of the same quote as if it wasn't there?
Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss.
This part says that differences in absorption and changes in expenditure don't sufficiently account for the differences. ("a calorie is a calorie")
But here you are assuming that because they admit to not knowing why, it has to be differences in calorie amount consumed, right? Because they don't say that specifically. They say they don't know. And that's okay. If we knew everything about food and how our bodies use calories there would be no need for research.
Well they do pretty much know BUT they are acting in accordance with proper science and not drawing conclusions past what their data support. That's why they are proposing the next subjects of research rather than divining it from outside the facts as a guru would. People should take note of the differences.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »byrdiegrrrl wrote: »I'm sorry to COMPLETLY DISAGREE with all of you but "a calorie is a calorie" is FALSE. The body processes different foods completely differently which is why we eat (or should attempt to eat) a balanced diet. Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the body which adds weight, particularly around ones midsection. Proteins are burned off/metabolized much differently and therefore don't make you gain weight the same way. I challenge two people in this forum: One of you eat 1200 calories/day of fried foods, cheese, and simple carbs. The other eat 1400 calories/day of lean protein, vegetables, fruit and whole grains (keeping dairy and carbs to a minimum or completely out of your diet). Do this for a month and I would bet that the latter will see more of a significant body change than the other. Ready. Set. GO!
strawman alert, strawman alert..
no one is recommending a diet of 100% fried foods because it would be impossible to get adequate nutrition and hit all micros.
Please go back and read through the whole thread before you make outlandish statements that are not true.
Fried food, cheese, and simple carbs. Supplemented properly, macros and micros could be done. Not recommended or a tasty way to eat for me - I'd be sick from all of the oil. But it could be done. Shoot, it might even be possible to get the nutrition in without the supplements. Do the Texas State Fair thing and put together a normal meal and then mash it all together and toss it in the fryer.
Either way, she'd still be wrong.
I've heard that there is nothing they don't fry at that Fair. Is deep fried bacon going just a tad overboard?
At the Texas State Fair, that's child's play. They've moved on from fried butter, fried bacon, fried beer, etc. Too easy and too simple. They have a competition every year for the most creative fried food. Couple of items that made the finalists last year: Chicken Fried Lobster with Champagne Gravy, Cowboy Corn Crunch, Deep Fried Alligator’s Egg Nest, Fried Beer-Battered Buffalo, Lone Star Pork Handle and Pretzel-Crusted Pollo Queso.
I didn't go, so can't comment on taste.
Don't remember what it was called, but last year at the rodeo we had a peanut butter cup, wrapped in cookie dough, battered, and then deep fried. It was amazing.
At a recent fair near us they had a deep-fried peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Coated in crushed Cap'n Crunch cereal, deep-fried, then drizzled with caramel and dusted with powdered sugar.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »byrdiegrrrl wrote: »I'm sorry to COMPLETLY DISAGREE with all of you but "a calorie is a calorie" is FALSE. The body processes different foods completely differently which is why we eat (or should attempt to eat) a balanced diet. Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the body which adds weight, particularly around ones midsection. Proteins are burned off/metabolized much differently and therefore don't make you gain weight the same way. I challenge two people in this forum: One of you eat 1200 calories/day of fried foods, cheese, and simple carbs. The other eat 1400 calories/day of lean protein, vegetables, fruit and whole grains (keeping dairy and carbs to a minimum or completely out of your diet). Do this for a month and I would bet that the latter will see more of a significant body change than the other. Ready. Set. GO!
strawman alert, strawman alert..
no one is recommending a diet of 100% fried foods because it would be impossible to get adequate nutrition and hit all micros.
Please go back and read through the whole thread before you make outlandish statements that are not true.
Fried food, cheese, and simple carbs. Supplemented properly, macros and micros could be done. Not recommended or a tasty way to eat for me - I'd be sick from all of the oil. But it could be done. Shoot, it might even be possible to get the nutrition in without the supplements. Do the Texas State Fair thing and put together a normal meal and then mash it all together and toss it in the fryer.
Either way, she'd still be wrong.
I've heard that there is nothing they don't fry at that Fair. Is deep fried bacon going just a tad overboard?
At the Texas State Fair, that's child's play. They've moved on from fried butter, fried bacon, fried beer, etc. Too easy and too simple. They have a competition every year for the most creative fried food. Couple of items that made the finalists last year: Chicken Fried Lobster with Champagne Gravy, Cowboy Corn Crunch, Deep Fried Alligator’s Egg Nest, Fried Beer-Battered Buffalo, Lone Star Pork Handle and Pretzel-Crusted Pollo Queso.
I didn't go, so can't comment on taste.
Don't remember what it was called, but last year at the rodeo we had a peanut butter cup, wrapped in cookie dough, battered, and then deep fried. It was amazing.
At a recent fair near us they had a deep-fried peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Coated in crushed Cap'n Crunch cereal, deep-fried, then drizzled with caramel and dusted with powdered sugar.
Just wow.0 -
I think some people might have missed the point of the entire "A calorie is a calorie" study. After a great deal of review and attempts to figure out the energy differences, they really excluded nothing as a possible cause. The went into detail about the variances that could happen in a number of diets due to the factors in the Atwater factors, as well as specifics about other studies. Of all the studies they summarized, they really came to no solid conclusion.
In the end all they did was confirm that energy balance exists, and that they really aren't 100% sure on much of anything due to having so many variables. Even when reviewing the data from 9 studies, they really didn't come up with solid answers, other than that they could not deny an inexact science.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »byrdiegrrrl wrote: »I'm sorry to COMPLETLY DISAGREE with all of you but "a calorie is a calorie" is FALSE. The body processes different foods completely differently which is why we eat (or should attempt to eat) a balanced diet. Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the body which adds weight, particularly around ones midsection. Proteins are burned off/metabolized much differently and therefore don't make you gain weight the same way. I challenge two people in this forum: One of you eat 1200 calories/day of fried foods, cheese, and simple carbs. The other eat 1400 calories/day of lean protein, vegetables, fruit and whole grains (keeping dairy and carbs to a minimum or completely out of your diet). Do this for a month and I would bet that the latter will see more of a significant body change than the other. Ready. Set. GO!
strawman alert, strawman alert..
no one is recommending a diet of 100% fried foods because it would be impossible to get adequate nutrition and hit all micros.
Please go back and read through the whole thread before you make outlandish statements that are not true.
Fried food, cheese, and simple carbs. Supplemented properly, macros and micros could be done. Not recommended or a tasty way to eat for me - I'd be sick from all of the oil. But it could be done. Shoot, it might even be possible to get the nutrition in without the supplements. Do the Texas State Fair thing and put together a normal meal and then mash it all together and toss it in the fryer.
Either way, she'd still be wrong.
I've heard that there is nothing they don't fry at that Fair. Is deep fried bacon going just a tad overboard?
At the Texas State Fair, that's child's play. They've moved on from fried butter, fried bacon, fried beer, etc. Too easy and too simple. They have a competition every year for the most creative fried food. Couple of items that made the finalists last year: Chicken Fried Lobster with Champagne Gravy, Cowboy Corn Crunch, Deep Fried Alligator’s Egg Nest, Fried Beer-Battered Buffalo, Lone Star Pork Handle and Pretzel-Crusted Pollo Queso.
I didn't go, so can't comment on taste.
Don't remember what it was called, but last year at the rodeo we had a peanut butter cup, wrapped in cookie dough, battered, and then deep fried. It was amazing.
At a recent fair near us they had a deep-fried peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Coated in crushed Cap'n Crunch cereal, deep-fried, then drizzled with caramel and dusted with powdered sugar.
Holy carnival food batman!
Those are some good calories right there.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions