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
-
stevencloser wrote: »I made a graphic.
I found one in a CALERIE paper that shows the adaptation to a 25% calorie reduction over 3 and 6 months, corrected for mass.
"TDEE adjusted for body composition, was significantly lower by −431±51 and −240±83 kcal/d at M3 and M6, respectively" and other observations at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634841/0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I made a graphic.
I found one in a CALERIE paper that shows the adaptation to a 25% calorie reduction over 3 and 6 months, corrected for mass.
"TDEE adjusted for body composition, was significantly lower by −431±51 and −240±83 kcal/d at M3 and M6, respectively" and other observations at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634841/
Funny how pretty much all successful people on here have not experienced this after having lost over a quarter of their bodyweight.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
So a calorie is only a calorie in weight gain if there are enough of them ?
No, a calorie will always be a calorie. Such tiny, sub-50 kcal surplusses or deficits are just counteracted by your body because it's not worth the work of creating extra fat tissue for. Also good luck trying to properly measure out a 50 kcal surplus.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I made a graphic.
I found one in a CALERIE paper that shows the adaptation to a 25% calorie reduction over 3 and 6 months, corrected for mass.
"TDEE adjusted for body composition, was significantly lower by −431±51 and −240±83 kcal/d at M3 and M6, respectively" and other observations at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634841/
Funny how pretty much all successful people on here have not experienced this after having lost over a quarter of their bodyweight.
Must be special snowflakes.
The reduction in activity observed in CALERIE could be overcome I guess, but it's an RCT of normal overweight humans.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
So a calorie is only a calorie in weight gain if there are enough of them ?
No, a calorie will always be a calorie. Such tiny, sub-50 kcal surplusses or deficits are just counteracted by your body because it's not worth the work of creating extra fat tissue for. Also good luck trying to properly measure out a 50 kcal surplus.
I can't measure a surplus or a deficit, don't have the kit. I can measure 12.5 grams of sugar.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
So a calorie is only a calorie in weight gain if there are enough of them ?
Wat?
It states that the body increases CO to compensate for the minor increase in CI. That's it.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
So a calorie is only a calorie in weight gain if there are enough of them ?
No, a calorie will always be a calorie. Such tiny, sub-50 kcal surplusses or deficits are just counteracted by your body because it's not worth the work of creating extra fat tissue for. Also good luck trying to properly measure out a 50 kcal surplus.
I can't measure a surplus or a deficit, don't have the kit. I can measure 12.5 grams of sugar.
I can't. My scale only goes in one gram increments. You should share your model when people ask for recommendations.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
So a calorie is only a calorie in weight gain if there are enough of them ?
Wat?
It states that the body increases CO to compensate for the minor increase in CI. That's it.
So how far does this alleged effect go - at what point does an extra calorie cause a weight increase as opposed to a compensation ?
How can a calorie be a calorie if a few of them have no effect but a lot of them have an effect. Shouldn't there be a simple dose response if the OP'S assertion were correct.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
So a calorie is only a calorie in weight gain if there are enough of them ?
Wat?
It states that the body increases CO to compensate for the minor increase in CI. That's it.
So how far does this alleged effect go - at what point does an extra calorie cause a weight increase as opposed to a compensation ?
How can a calorie be a calorie if a few of them have no effect but a lot of them have an effect. Shouldn't there be a simple dose response if the OP'S assertion were correct.
wow, talk about missing the point, which is that it is pretty much going to be impossible to peg a 50 calorie surplus and translate that into meaningful LBM gain.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
So a calorie is only a calorie in weight gain if there are enough of them ?
Wat?
It states that the body increases CO to compensate for the minor increase in CI. That's it.
So how far does this alleged effect go - at what point does an extra calorie cause a weight increase as opposed to a compensation ?
How can a calorie be a calorie if a few of them have no effect but a lot of them have an effect. Shouldn't there be a simple dose response if the OP'S assertion were correct.
wow, talk about missing the point, which is that it is pretty much going to be impossible to peg a 50 calorie surplus and translate that into meaningful LBM gain.
Completely impossible for most of us to peg a 50 calorie surplus period. Even the most robotic bodybuilder can't control their metabolic rate.0 -
If I ever win the lottery, I'm going to crowdsource protocols for the most unusual metabolic ward studies ever out of these threads.0
-
-
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I made a graphic.
I found one in a CALERIE paper that shows the adaptation to a 25% calorie reduction over 3 and 6 months, corrected for mass.
"TDEE adjusted for body composition, was significantly lower by −431±51 and −240±83 kcal/d at M3 and M6, respectively" and other observations at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634841/
Funny how pretty much all successful people on here have not experienced this after having lost over a quarter of their bodyweight.
And surely there is a peer reviewed study that would prove that metabolic changes within the MFP community differ from those outside the MFP community? What "all" are you referencing, what are their weight change and body composition metrics, and what forms of exercise did they do?
I'd think it's "funny" to make a statement that can't be substantiated and expect it to be taken seriously.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
So a calorie is only a calorie in weight gain if there are enough of them ?
No, a calorie will always be a calorie. Such tiny, sub-50 kcal surplusses or deficits are just counteracted by your body because it's not worth the work of creating extra fat tissue for. Also good luck trying to properly measure out a 50 kcal surplus.
Twisting science to remove the laws of energy balance and studies that explain minor changes is still twisting science. If a calorie is a calorie and absolute as you and many others suggested upthread when I bring up variances and error, then that 50kcal change in the intake side would be as easy as the food scale, some simple math, and food to weigh on it.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I made a graphic.
I found one in a CALERIE paper that shows the adaptation to a 25% calorie reduction over 3 and 6 months, corrected for mass.
"TDEE adjusted for body composition, was significantly lower by −431±51 and −240±83 kcal/d at M3 and M6, respectively" and other observations at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634841/
Funny how pretty much all successful people on here have not experienced this after having lost over a quarter of their bodyweight.
And surely there is a peer reviewed study that would prove that metabolic changes within the MFP community differ from those outside the MFP community? What "all" are you referencing, what are their weight change and body composition metrics, and what forms of exercise did they do?
I'd think it's "funny" to make a statement that can't be substantiated and expect it to be taken seriously.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
So a calorie is only a calorie in weight gain if there are enough of them ?
No, a calorie will always be a calorie. Such tiny, sub-50 kcal surplusses or deficits are just counteracted by your body because it's not worth the work of creating extra fat tissue for. Also good luck trying to properly measure out a 50 kcal surplus.
Twisting science to remove the laws of energy balance and studies that explain minor changes is still twisting science. If a calorie is a calorie and absolute as you and many others suggested upthread when I bring up variances and error, then that 50kcal change in the intake side would be as easy as the food scale, some simple math, and food to weigh on it.
How hard is it to understand that there's a small amount of up and down on a daily basis in everything from CI to CO which doesn't change that a calorie is a calorie?
Seriously. Your body can up and downregulate a little bit to stay at the same weight when it's not worth building more mass or losing mass but a proper deficit or surplus will result in loss or gain. Laws of energy are in place. Energy doesn't disappear, your body just burns a bit more here and there, a 0.1 increase in body temperature or whatever else.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I made a graphic.
I found one in a CALERIE paper that shows the adaptation to a 25% calorie reduction over 3 and 6 months, corrected for mass.
"TDEE adjusted for body composition, was significantly lower by −431±51 and −240±83 kcal/d at M3 and M6, respectively" and other observations at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634841/
Funny how pretty much all successful people on here have not experienced this after having lost over a quarter of their bodyweight.
And surely there is a peer reviewed study that would prove that metabolic changes within the MFP community differ from those outside the MFP community? What "all" are you referencing, what are their weight change and body composition metrics, and what forms of exercise did they do?
I'd think it's "funny" to make a statement that can't be substantiated and expect it to be taken seriously.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
So a calorie is only a calorie in weight gain if there are enough of them ?
No, a calorie will always be a calorie. Such tiny, sub-50 kcal surplusses or deficits are just counteracted by your body because it's not worth the work of creating extra fat tissue for. Also good luck trying to properly measure out a 50 kcal surplus.
Twisting science to remove the laws of energy balance and studies that explain minor changes is still twisting science. If a calorie is a calorie and absolute as you and many others suggested upthread when I bring up variances and error, then that 50kcal change in the intake side would be as easy as the food scale, some simple math, and food to weigh on it.
How hard is it to understand that there's a small amount of up and down on a daily basis in everything from CI to CO which doesn't change that a calorie is a calorie?
Seriously. Your body can up and downregulate a little bit to stay at the same weight when it's not worth building more mass or losing mass but a proper deficit or surplus will result in loss or gain. Laws of energy are in place. Energy doesn't disappear, your body just burns a bit more here and there, a 0.1 increase in body temperature or whatever else.
I take it that means you don't have any evidence to support your claims?
I've never denied that a calorie is a calorie in the sense of potential energy. I've simply brought up a bunch of small factors that when combined can lead to larger variances in what goes across a food scale vs what is available for energy use in humans, which is what the original post was about. Adding the calories out to the matter just brings in more variables and error.
You have discounted a study that was posted by @yarwell claiming that such study isn't true as it applies to a group of people. Please cite your sources in the same manner you expect from others. Otherwise you are in denial of the presented science, and I'd say you appear to be forming your own opinions of other possible explanations that are unknowns unless backed by science.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I made a graphic.
I found one in a CALERIE paper that shows the adaptation to a 25% calorie reduction over 3 and 6 months, corrected for mass.
"TDEE adjusted for body composition, was significantly lower by −431±51 and −240±83 kcal/d at M3 and M6, respectively" and other observations at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634841/
Funny how pretty much all successful people on here have not experienced this after having lost over a quarter of their bodyweight.
If you look at the reverse diet debate video I linked as another thread, Menno Hanselman discusses he has a paper agreeing with the idea that there is no metabolic damage. He says most changes in metabolic rate even in experiments as severe as the Minnesota experiment are explained purely by changes in lean tissue mass.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I made a graphic.
I found one in a CALERIE paper that shows the adaptation to a 25% calorie reduction over 3 and 6 months, corrected for mass.
"TDEE adjusted for body composition, was significantly lower by −431±51 and −240±83 kcal/d at M3 and M6, respectively" and other observations at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634841/
Funny how pretty much all successful people on here have not experienced this after having lost over a quarter of their bodyweight.
If you look at the reverse diet debate video I linked as another thread, Menno Hanselman discusses he has a paper agreeing with the idea that there is no metabolic damage. He says most changes in metabolic rate even in experiments as severe as the Minnesota experiment are explained purely by changes in lean tissue mass.
I didn't watch it, because video and opinion, but the graph I posted was corrected for mass and body composition
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004377 was the paper I lifted the graphic from, here's a table from the same source showing that it's corrected for FM and FFM :-
(CR=25% food restriction, CR+EX = 12.5 % food restriction, 12.5% exercise increase, LCD = 890 kcal/d VLCD until 15% weight loss)
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »How hard is it to understand that there's a small amount of up and down on a daily basis in everything from CI to CO which doesn't change that a calorie is a calorie?
Seriously. Your body can up and downregulate a little bit to stay at the same weight when it's not worth building more mass or losing mass but a proper deficit or surplus will result in loss or gain. Laws of energy are in place. Energy doesn't disappear, your body just burns a bit more here and there, a 0.1 increase in body temperature or whatever else.
So let's go along with this hypothesis and say a 50 kcal deficit is accommodated by some response or other, but a "proper" deficit of say 500 kcal leads to weight loss.
This says that calorie #30 is different to calorie #300 because the first is one of the calories that leads to a compensatory response whereas the second is part of a "proper deficit" that leads to weight loss.
Calorie #30 can't be the same as calorie #300 in terms of it's effect on human physiology if you're saying the outcome is different.
Of course both of them would heat 1 kg of water from 14.5 to 15.5 C or whatever definition you favour, but in a "Nutrition Debate" they are not the same. Equally a properly done energy and body composition balance analysis would balance before and after and tell us what happened, but it wouldn't be the same for each of the two calorie increments - if the hypothesis is correct.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions