All calories may not be equal
Options
Replies
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »SophieSmall95 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »SophieSmall95 wrote: »earthakin66 wrote: »So I'm looking for people who have read the book and are interested in discussing that, no point in discussing the book with people who haven't read it. There is plenty of science to back it up (written by a doctor, by the way, not a stick insect- was that a typo?).
I'm familiar with Ludwig's work.You just appear to not be happy with people calling out the BS.
Just because he is a doctor does not make him right. Especially when bias and money are involved. He makes money selling this "information". That ought to make you wary of anything he says. Only peer reviewed scientific articles and meta studies that have as little bias as possible are good sources of scientific information in my book.
In other words, anyone who writes a book and makes money is a crook?
The man is a professor of nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Perhaps he knows something? Perhaps he wants to spread a message that could reduce our obesity and diabetes epidemic.
I see you like to put words into people's mouths.
Having read some of his work he is selling lies and things which do not align with science.
As @daniip_la said he is spouting fake science and selling it "The goal in Phase 1 is to calm down fat cells and take the body out of starvation mode." That is incorrect and not how the body works. You cannot train your cells to do anything it is complete nonsense.
This is not to say the man isn't educated. But that does not mean he is being honest is the work he sells personally away form the university and his job. To blindly trust just because he is a doctor is frankly...not smart.
You sound like the vegans who think you will get heart disease if you eat a few eggs every now and then or have a piece of fish. Like the vegans, you are totally set in your ways (CICO), and anything that challenges your belief is "fake science."
The fact is that many people post here that are not losing weight counting calories. And the retort is they are not counting correctly.
Really, how hard is it to count calories if you simplify your meals and purchase products where there can be no doubt? (like a cup of cereal with the posted portion of skim milk, or anything that comes in a package).
No. I just rely on peer reviewed scientific studies and meta analyses for my information. And if those sources showed CICO to be wrong tomorrow I'd immediately change my views. But as of yet not a single scientific study can back up CICO not being the key to weight, and trust me I have looked and read hundreds of studies.
Because they either are not counting calorie correctly or have an diagnosed medical condition causing lack of weight loss. It is physically impossible not to lose weight at a calorie deficit. You can choose to be as uneducated as you like. Doesn't change the facts.
It's not hard to count calories. But a lot of people don't do it properly (weighing, measuring, forgetting to log things here and there etc) which is why they are inaccurate. And you should still weigh packaged products. There is variation within packets, depending on the product it can make a big difference in calories.20 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »SophieSmall95 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »SophieSmall95 wrote: »earthakin66 wrote: »So I'm looking for people who have read the book and are interested in discussing that, no point in discussing the book with people who haven't read it. There is plenty of science to back it up (written by a doctor, by the way, not a stick insect- was that a typo?).
I'm familiar with Ludwig's work.You just appear to not be happy with people calling out the BS.
Just because he is a doctor does not make him right. Especially when bias and money are involved. He makes money selling this "information". That ought to make you wary of anything he says. Only peer reviewed scientific articles and meta studies that have as little bias as possible are good sources of scientific information in my book.
In other words, anyone who writes a book and makes money is a crook?
The man is a professor of nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Perhaps he knows something? Perhaps he wants to spread a message that could reduce our obesity and diabetes epidemic.
I see you like to put words into people's mouths.
Having read some of his work he is selling lies and things which do not align with science.
As @daniip_la said he is spouting fake science and selling it "The goal in Phase 1 is to calm down fat cells and take the body out of starvation mode." That is incorrect and not how the body works. You cannot train your cells to do anything it is complete nonsense.
This is not to say the man isn't educated. But that does not mean he is being honest is the work he sells personally away form the university and his job. To blindly trust just because he is a doctor is frankly...not smart.
You sound like the vegans who think you will get heart disease if you eat a few eggs every now and then or have a piece of fish. Like the vegans, you are totally set in your ways (CICO), and anything that challenges your belief is "fake science."
The fact is that many people post here that are not losing weight counting calories. And the retort is they are not counting correctly.
Really, how hard is it to count calories if you simplify your meals and purchase products where there can be no doubt? (like a cup of cereal with the posted portion of skim milk, or anything that comes in a package).
I have extensive knowledge in the chemistry field. I know that the laws of thermodynamics exist, and that mass cannot be created from nothing. Eating less than your body burns can not, without violating the laws of physics, cause you to gain weight. A claim violating that principle is fake science.
If you've looked at the threads where people aren't losing weight while counting calories, you've no doubt seen that most people don't properly measure their intake, or miscalculate their output. Do they measure that cereal and milk? How? Was it weighed? Measuring cups can be quite inconsistent, which leads to a calorie intake error.
And if they are being 100% accurate with calories in, who's to say that their bodies burn what the calculators think they do? I lose faster than expected and I log as close to 100% accurate as I can. Some people may lose slower than expected because their bodies simply don't burn as many calories as others do.19 -
earthakin66 wrote: »Why isn't it science? Isn't chronic inflammation real?
If you think you have a high level of systemic inflammation, you can get a blood test that measures your C-reactive protein levels, but you'll also then need to look for the underlying cause (things like autoimmune disease, not just "eating too many toxins" or other such woo). Your body isn't just inflamed for no reason.15 -
Here is a link to a somewhat critical review (with references) of the book by a neurobiologist:
wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2016/01/always-hungry-its-probably-not-your.html3 -
I haven't read the book, but I am a fitness trainer and all calories are not the same. While trying to loose weight if you eat too many carbs you will still loose weight but you will be loosing muscle and not look as flattering if you loosed the fat. However, not all carbs are bad - stay away from simple carbs (in moderation)5
-
carlenbowie wrote: »I haven't read the book, but I am a fitness trainer and all calories are not the same. While trying to loose weight if you eat too many carbs you will still loose weight but you will be loosing muscle and not look as flattering if you loosed the fat. However, not all carbs are bad - stay away from simple carbs (in moderation)
Not really, you are saying it wrong. To many carbs is not the same as LOW protein.5 -
It just seems obvious to me that 200 calories in almonds vs. 200 calories in a doughnut will not have the same result in your body. It actually seems like people here agree on that so I don't really know what the issue is. Part of the idea is that if we eat 1400 calories worth of nutritionally dense, higher fat foods then we will be less hungry than if we ate 1400 calories of processed, low fat foods.
I read the review, interesting points.
I dont trust doctors blindly, just was pointing out that he isn't a stick insect.10 -
earthakin66 wrote: »I don't mind hearing criticism, I just wonder why everyone feels the need to offer that. Thanks for the tip, I'll look over in groups.
Because people with little experience with CICO and the lifestyle changes which often need to accompany weight-loss and maintenance of the loss might read this and think he's credible. Dr. Oz is a doctor and his weight-loss tips/ideas (raspberry ketones, garcina cambogia, etc.) are not effective nor credible. There's a professor with a Ph.D. who denies the massacre at Sandyhook occurred. Even demanded the parents of one of the dead children provide proof their child died. He taught Communication and Media Studies at FAU and was convinced the journalists didn't uncover the truth about what happened, because to him the massacre was faked to gain emotional momentum to pass gun control legislation.
Education doesn't make a person "right." (Or, apparently a decent human being in the case of the Sandyhook denier.) It makes them informed. Research and the body of studies which support or confound theories is important in discerning what information is accurate.
Then they think they have to stick with his program and if they can't they think there's no hope and they quit trying. If it works for you--awesome! But personally, I don't want to let information that's not researched and shown to be valid and reliable to stand without challenge.7 -
Just a thought on my previous post.
If there are newbies who want to start counting calories, it should be strongly suggested to them, at least for the first month or so, that they only purchase foods where there can be no possible way of screwing up the calorie count.
A can of tuna fish, two eggs, pre-packaged frozen burgers on a bun, a can of soup, an ice cream bar (as opposed to scooping ice cream from a container), a pre-packaged burrito, etc. Just about anything where you can "leave your brain at home" when counting.
I have never read ANYBODY suggest this incredible simplification of the process.2 -
earthakin66 wrote: »Has anyone else read the book "Always Hungry"? It really explains everything that I have always felt intuitively. What if he is right about not all calories being equal? That different foods (and therefore calories) biologically impact us in different ways?
The bolded part seems very much like a "duh!" statement to me. Are there people who believe that all foods biologically impact us in the same way?
As for calories being equal it depends on what you mean. As a unit of measurement a calorie is a calorie. But I suspect he means how calories affect us once eaten and then yeah, there are differences.3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Just a thought on my previous post.
If there are newbies who want to start counting calories, it should be strongly suggested to them, at least for the first month or so, that they only purchase foods where there can be no possible way of screwing up the calorie count.
A can of tuna fish, two eggs, pre-packaged frozen burgers on a bun, a can of soup, an ice cream bar (as opposed to scooping ice cream from a container), a pre-packaged burrito, etc. Just about anything where you can "leave your brain at home" when counting.
I have never read ANYBODY suggest this incredible simplification of the process.
Because, to be truly accurate, they'd still have to weigh the food. Nothing would be gained by buying premade, premeasured food if you still have to measure it yourself. Besides, who eats like that? I don't eat many foods that come from a can or box.
7 -
earthakin66 wrote: »It just seems obvious to me that 200 calories in almonds vs. 200 calories in a doughnut will not have the same result in your body. It actually seems like people here agree on that so I don't really know what the issue is. Part of the idea is that if we eat 1400 calories worth of nutritionally dense, higher fat foods then we will be less hungry than if we ate 1400 calories of processed, low fat foods.
I read the review, interesting points.
I dont trust doctors blindly, just was pointing out that he isn't a stick insect.
Again!! For your weight-loss 200 calories is 200 calories.. No difference at all. For your state of mind its wise to make the healthy choices in food 99% of the time. And that is what most CICO'rs do!8 -
No matter what way I eat, healthy or unhealthy, I only lose weight by counting my calories and being under my goal. I've lost 100 lbs counting calories.
Sorry, there is no magic bullet for weight lose.20 -
earthakin66 wrote: »It just seems obvious to me that 200 calories in almonds vs. 200 calories in a doughnut will not have the same result in your body. It actually seems like people here agree on that so I don't really know what the issue is. Part of the idea is that if we eat 1400 calories worth of nutritionally dense, higher fat foods then we will be less hungry than if we ate 1400 calories of processed, low fat foods.
I read the review, interesting points.
I dont trust doctors blindly, just was pointing out that he isn't a stick insect.
But if you aren't counting calories, you don't know you are eating 1400 cals of nutritious food. I know plenty of people who switched to eating "clean" and they actually gained weight because they stopped measuring their portions and overate.
When it comes to weight loss, 200 cals of almonds is the same as 200 cals of doughnuts. Obviously, health is a different story. But having said that, if I ate lots of veggies and fiber and lean protein and got plenty of nutrition, and I end up with 200 cals left over, having a 200 calorie doughnut with my tea rather than 200 cals of almonds is not going to make me fat. There's no magic button in my cells the sugar and flour from the doughnut are going to push to make me diabetic or obese.
Anyway, if you want to follow his plan, go for it! If you lose weight, it will be because that way of eating helps you to eat the right amount of calories. Maybe it's the right way for you! I don't need to read it, because I kept a food log on MFP that I didn't have to pay a penny for, I eat a mostly nutritious diet that includes enough pizza and ice cream and Doritos to keep me happy, but not so much that I am unhealthy or overweight, and I have easily followed this for over two years so far and am totally psyched about that!22 -
earthakin66 wrote: »Part of the idea is that if we eat 1400 calories worth of nutritionally dense, higher fat foods then we will be less hungry than if we ate 1400 calories of processed, low fat foods.
I agree with this, 100%. I wanted a fresh-from the oven chocolate with chocolate chip brownie for breakfast this morning. But it was over 400kcal. Instead, I had a huge plate of eggs with ham, cheese, and mushrooms for around the same.
The problem isn't that the calories will make you feel difference and give different levels of nutrition. The problem is when people say that eating the brownie instead of the eggs will cause you to lose weight slower or not at all. It won't, unless you have an underlying medical problem. You can eat either one, as long as it's in your calorie goal, and lose weight just the same. You might just be hungrier eating the brownie instead of the eggs (I know I would have been).19 -
earthakin66 wrote: »It just seems obvious to me that 200 calories in almonds vs. 200 calories in a doughnut will not have the same result in your body. It actually seems like people here agree on that so I don't really know what the issue is. Part of the idea is that if we eat 1400 calories worth of nutritionally dense, higher fat foods then we will be less hungry than if we ate 1400 calories of processed, low fat foods.
I read the review, interesting points.
I dont trust doctors blindly, just was pointing out that he isn't a stick insect.
There is a difference though between saying a calorie isn't a calorie and discussing the satiety levels of different foods. Most will agree that eating bulkier more nutrient dense food for the majority of your calories is going to keep you feeling fuller and less hungry when compared to eating calorically dense, less filling items. The whole trick to losing and maintaining weight loss is finding a way to eat that satisfies you, you can easily stick with while hitting a deficit or eating at maintenance.
How someone chooses to go about that is a personal thing. I probably eat more protein than most people at 45% of my calories, but it works for me. I try and practice the 80-20 rule to make sure I do get a balanced diet with some room for treats.
7 -
I think this is the crux of the problem for some...A calorie is not a calorie in terms of satiety.16
-
earthakin66 wrote: »It just seems obvious to me that 200 calories in almonds vs. 200 calories in a doughnut will not have the same result in your body. It actually seems like people here agree on that so I don't really know what the issue is. Part of the idea is that if we eat 1400 calories worth of nutritionally dense, higher fat foods then we will be less hungry than if we ate 1400 calories of processed, low fat foods.
I read the review, interesting points.
I dont trust doctors blindly, just was pointing out that he isn't a stick insect.
You are confusing the concept of calories (a unit of energy) with macros (and all the other attributes of food). Nobody here is going to argue that almonds and doughnuts will have different effects on your blood sugar, your level of satiety, etc. (Because duh, no kidding.) We will point out that the same caloric amount of doughnuts and almonds will make no difference in terms of weight loss EXCEPT if they impact your hunger level (and one makes you more likely to overeat). A calorie is the same as any other calorie. A macro is NOT the same as any other macro.10 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Just a thought on my previous post.
If there are newbies who want to start counting calories, it should be strongly suggested to them, at least for the first month or so, that they only purchase foods where there can be no possible way of screwing up the calorie count.
A can of tuna fish, two eggs, pre-packaged frozen burgers on a bun, a can of soup, an ice cream bar (as opposed to scooping ice cream from a container), a pre-packaged burrito, etc. Just about anything where you can "leave your brain at home" when counting.
I have never read ANYBODY suggest this incredible simplification of the process.
Because they are allowed a 10% margin of error.....2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 936 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions