Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
A quick refresher on a calorie is a calorie ....
Replies
-
I was actually joking...
Unless you have a medical condition it does not matter....
I eat white rice all the time...
It is kind of sad that you've been dead for five years now.0 -
If my scale shows pounds, will that convert the Canadian money I put on into British pounds?
Aside: grams are for mass, not weight. People bastardized the meaning and made grams = weight.
Yeah, but I still want to call it weighing instead of massing because I don't want people thinking I'm Catholic.
Sorry, I have a Hadron for physics puns.0 -
It is kind of sad that you've been dead for five years now.
or have type two diabetes….0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Well, ndj's point in creating this thread was about the scientific technicality of a calorie being a calorie. Regardless of how a scale works on a mechanical level, it doesn't change the science involved when we "weigh" food.
my point in creating this thread was as a reminder that a calorie is a calorie from an energy standpoint; however, they are not all nutritionally the same. It was not to discuss how the position of the moon and gravity affect scales or calories….0 -
or have type two diabetes….
You ate white rice. You're on to type 7 diabetes by now.0 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »
What really bothers me about this is the word PRIORITIES.
WHOSE priorities? WHAT priorities?
If your priority is a scale number, then DEFICIT IS ALL YOU NEED.
You'll lose weight......of some sort!!!
You'll get results......a lower number on the scale. BUT I hope you like the results on your body, because a deficit doesn't mean you get the body composition you want, or improved blood sugar readings, or better blood pressure, or better moods, or better sleep.......It just means you'll lose weight.
The idea that there are things that have a higher priority of influence on weight loss, performance and body composition doesn't mean individual priorities aren't considered.
That pyramid doesn't say you can't eat low carb, or vegan or focus only on weight loss or composition at maintenance. Whatever your personal priority and goals working off that pyramid allows for a structured plan that focuses on the majors and avoids a lot of traps.
If you don't want to follow that and think that, say special supplements, for example, are going to solve your problems. Well, good luck with that.0 -
You ate white rice. You're on to type 7 diabetes by now.
I am already dead ….0 -
0
-
Yeah, but I still want to call it weighing instead of massing because I don't want people thinking I'm Catholic.
Sorry, I have a Hadron for physics puns.
That made me guffaw
at my desk
it wasn't pretty
0 -
because you initially lose more water weight..
and you radically change the fuel oxidation proportions between fat and carbohydrate.0 -
If anyone thinks there's a single definition of the calorie they might enjoy the nine different definitions listed by the UN's FAO in Table 3.7 at http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5022e/y5022e04.htm
Some of the variations depend on where you stop on this diagram :-
0 -
What about candy canes?
0 -
and you radically change the fuel oxidation proportions between fat and carbohydrate.
And those proportional change because... Drummroll please, it wants to keep your total fatloss the same, I.e. the outcome.0 -
Sure, eat more fat burn more fat, eat more carbs burn more carbs. There is no significant difference in the burning of stored body fat though...
and you radically change the fuel oxidation proportions between fat and carbohydrate.
0 -
Sure, eat more fat burn more fat, eat more carbs burn more carbs. There is no significant difference in the burning of stored body fat though...
And the study @yarwell always pays a graphic from always boils down to this (which is why he posts the graphic and not the conclusion text).0 -
I post the graphic because it's simple and clear. It makes the point perfectly that an 800 calorie reduction in carbs has a different effect on the body than the same reduction in fats. That is all. So it counters what the OP claims that "all calories are the same". If they were the same the effect on the body would be the same.
FWIW I find Hall's half experiment fairly disappointing, as it never got to the point where we might have learned something. It also was launched with PR words that doesn't correspond to the data in the paper. But everyone can find the paper and read it.0 -
I post the graphic because it's simple and clear. It makes the point perfectly that an 800 calorie reduction in carbs has a different effect on the body than the same reduction in fats. That is all. So it counters what the OP claims that "all calories are the same". If they were the same the effect on the body would be the same.
FWIW I find Hall's half experiment fairly disappointing, as it never got to the point where we might have learned something. It also was launched with PR words that doesn't correspond to the data in the paper. But everyone can find the paper and read it.
How so? It repeated those words many times in the study itself. And are you more disappointed that it pointed out the low fat had greater fat loss than low carb?Hall Study wrote:This study demonstrated that, calorie for calorie, restriction of dietary fat led to greater body fat loss than restriction of dietary carbohydrate in adults with obesity. This occurred despite the fact that only the carbohydrate-restricted diet led to decreased insulin secretion and a substantial sustained increase in net fat oxidation compared to the baseline energy-balanced diet.
http://itarget.com.br/newclients/sbgg.com.br/informativos/14-09-15/1.pdf0 -
Sure, eat more fat burn more fat, eat more carbs burn more carbs. There is no significant difference in the burning of stored body fat though...
yes there was in Hall's study. Hence the fanfare about low fat giving greater weight loss. The calculated body fat loss by calorimetry was not the same in the two arms. Even the graphical summary shows this.
Let me quote you the title, which contains a massive clue :Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity.
so all calories are not the same. Anyone got evidence they are identical ? not that this would override evidence that they aren't, but would illustrate the controversy.0 -
From a good discussion of the study:
https://examine.com/blog/really-low-fat-vs-somewhat-lower-carb/As expected, the researchers found that the Restricted Carb diet resulted in a decrease in daily insulin secretion (by 22%) and a sustained increase in fat oxidation, whereas the Restricted Fat diet resulted in no significant change of either. Despite this, by the end of the six-day period, the Restricted Fat diet resulted in greater fat loss than did the Restricted Carb group (463g vs. 245g).
The Restricted Carb dieters also had lower energy expenditure, to the tune of 98 fewer kcal/d compared to only 50 fewer in the Restricted Fat group. This isn’t enough calories to account for the difference in fat loss though. So why exactly did the Restricted Fat group lose that much more fat than the Restricted Carb group? The paper doesn’t get into this much, but gives some hints:
"Model simulations suggest that the differences in fat loss were due to transient differences in carbohydrate balance along with persistent differences in energy and fat balance. The model also implicated small persistent changes in protein balance resulting from the fact that dietary carbohydrates preserve nitrogen balance to a greater degree than fat”
… so their mathematical model points to a few possible minor factors, including a possible small benefit from dietary carbs benefiting protein balance....
“Very low carbohydrate diets were predicted to result in fat losses comparable to low fat diets. Indeed, the model simulations suggest that isocaloric reduced-energy diets over a wide range of carbohydrate and fat content would lead to only small differences in body fat and energy expenditure over extended durations.”
… ah, so if the researchers were able to reduce carbs to a much lower level (which they couldn’t, due to the study design factors described earlier), the diets would have actually led to similar weight loss. That makes those “New Study Shows Low-Carb Failure!” headlines sound a bit silly. If you take a really-darn-low-fat diet like the Restricted Fat diet, and compare it to a very-low-carb diet, you’re comparing two extreme diets and are more likely to get some metabolic advantage. Our bodies are typically accustomed to a somewhat balanced mix of fuel, and extreme macronutrient diets can probably game the system a bit for a modicum of extra fat loss.
More importantly, the authors put the results really important context: the differences in body fat loss between a wide range of different carb intakes are predicted to be very small (although the Restricted Fat diet was predicted to sustain its slight advantage over the course of months). This study wasn’t meant to demonstrate that low(ish) carbs are bad or low-fat is good, it was simply testing the hypothesis that carb reduction provides some secret sauce for fat loss in highly controlled conditions.
So for practical purposes for a dieter a calorie is a calorie. Focusing on macros (beyond getting enough protein) is unlikely to matter much for weight loss or body comp and is the definition of majoring in the macros. Ought to be good news for low carb lovers, among others, since it means that one can choose what is most enjoyable and sustainable for them without worrying that there's some other way of cutting calories out there that would lead to better or faster weight loss or that cutting calories won't work unless you pick precisely the right macro mix.
People overcomplicate.
And obviously everyone should ideally also eat a nutrient-rich diet, for health and energy and because your mom wants you to!0 -
yes there was in Hall's study. Hence the fanfare about low fat giving greater weight loss. The calculated body fat loss by calorimetry was not the same in the two arms. Even the graphical summary shows this.
Let me quote you the title, which contains a massive clue :
so all calories are not the same. Anyone got evidence they are identical ? not that this would override evidence that they aren't, but would illustrate the controversy.
Aren't these studies over only the short term? Over the long term, it is my understanding that they all sort of result in the same overall weight/fat loss.0 -
Aren't these studies over only the short term? Over the long term, it is my understanding that they all sort of result in the same overall weight/fat loss.
the study I am referring to is indeed over the short term. There was no qualification in the OP about duration, the assertion was that all calories are the same.
Hall's study argues contrary to what one might assume to be my "position" but it is explicitly clear that the effect was not the same - "Whereas carbohydrate restriction led to sustained increases in fat oxidation and loss of 53 ± 6 g/day of body fat, fat oxidation was unchanged by fat restriction, leading to 89 ± 6 g/day of fat loss, and was significantly greater than carbohydrate restriction (p = 0.002). " Same calories, different outcome. QED.0 -
and you radically change the fuel oxidation proportions between fat and carbohydrate.
and the outcome is still the same…same fat loss in low carb or high carb…
unless you want to post the link to a full study showing otherwise...0 -
If anyone thinks there's a single definition of the calorie they might enjoy the nine different definitions listed by the UN's FAO in Table 3.7 at http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5022e/y5022e04.htm
Some of the variations depend on where you stop on this diagram :-
These aren't different definitions of a calorie.0 -
and the outcome is still the same…same fat loss in low carb or high carb…
unless you want to post the link to a full study showing otherwise...
Both Yarwell and I posted the study.0 -
Both Yarwell and I posted the study.
I was not referring to that particular study...0 -
How so? It repeated those words many times in the study itself.
The PR (and perhaps parts of the text) was potentially misleading because there was actually no difference in the measured (DEXA) fat loss between the two diets in men. The calorie deficit was different between the two diets too - it was greater in the reduced fat diet (p=0.014)
Supplementary table S3 shows that there was no significant measured fat loss in the female subjects on either diet - in fact their % body fat went up (NS).
This wasn't made clear in the headlines, which are all about the calculated extrapolated fat loss.0 -
If memory serves right they used another Methode to calculate the fat losses too because dexa isn't accurate enough for such small losses. And that one showed the differences.0
-
yes there was in Hall's study. Hence the fanfare about low fat giving greater weight loss. The calculated body fat loss by calorimetry was not the same in the two arms. Even the graphical summary shows this.
Let me quote you the title, which contains a massive clue :
so all calories are not the same. Anyone got evidence they are identical ? not that this would override evidence that they aren't, but would illustrate the controversy.
Not sure what you are getting at here? There are thousands of studies comparing diet compositions. They all show minor variations in how your body responds to different macro ratios, and sometimes significant differences when extreme macro ratios are used. Obviously your body is going to respond differently to a 40/30/30 split than it is to a 100/0/0 split. For a reasonable ratio, rate of body fat loss is always about the same, depending almost exclusively on caloric deficit (which includes the calories expended in all forms part of the equation of course).
I thought the OP's point was that calories are a measurement of energy, but calorie intake is not the same thing as nutrition, nor is it the same thing as macro composition.
Excerpts from the OP:
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
so what matters at the end of the day is that one gets adequate nutrition, hits calorie targets, and meets macro needs.
...
That is what I got out of it anyway. Maybe I am missing the point of the OP?0 -
Aren't these studies over only the short term? Over the long term, it is my understanding that they all sort of result in the same overall weight/fat loss.
Right -- I posted a discussion of it immediately before your post.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.9K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions