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.
If a calorie is a calorie, why do we see this?
Options
Replies
-
Another study going the *same way*.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2013.863169Results: Thirty-six subjects completed the study (G1 = 18, G2 = 18). Both groups had significant improvements in body composition and metabolic parameters but G1 had enhanced results for weight loss (G1: −8.2 ± 3.0 kg; G2: −6.5 ± 3.4 kg; p = 0.028),
Got any uhhhhhhh metabolic ward studies? Seriously, every study done on free living subjects is subject to the whims of who wanted to buy a Snickers bar and not tell the stern people in lab coats.
Note: it really is much more a matter of not realizing / recalling than actual lying about intake.21 -
So basically it's proving that a calorie deficit is how you lose weight, and weightloss improves health markers.6
-
lettuce calories would be better than weightloss than fat or sugar calories.3
-
estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weightloss than fat or sugar calories.
How so? A calorie is a unit of energy.10 -
estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weightloss than fat or sugar calories.
Why?
Among other things, living only on lettuce would lead to death if done for too long.
"Lettuce calories" are not a thing, btw. Lettuce has (a few) calories, as do other foods. Lettuce also has carbs, certain micros, a tiny amount of protein, etc. Your body cannot identify calories by where they came from originally, as calories are a unit of energy.
Also, I'm trying and trying to figure out how this relates to the posted study, but can't. Could you explain it to me? As I read the two studies mentioned, they were eating the exact same diets (well, not really, but that was the plan and nothing about differences in lettuce consumption or fat or sugar consumption).6 -
just_Tomek wrote: »estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weightloss than fat or sugar calories.
For weight loss???? Absolutely not. For nutritional value, yeap.
Eh, I think an avocado or some nuts (high fat) compare perfectly well to, say, iceberg lettuce for nutritional value.
Even a banana (high sugar) does.
Of course, I'm all for a diet that includes nuts, avocado, bananas, and lettuce (I like boston lettuce, it's yum, with some spinach and watercress, perhaps). Also, many other greens, fruits and veg, and sources of protein and fat.3 -
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.20460Design and Methods: Overweight and obese women (BMI 32.4 6 1.8 kg=m2) with metabolic syndrome were randomized into two isocaloric (1400 kcal) weight loss groups, a breakfast (BF) (700 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 200 kcal dinner) or a dinner (D) group (200 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 700 kcal dinner) for 12 weeks.
So 1400cal in both groups, first BF ate 700 / 500 /200 for breakfast / lunch / dinner and the D group ate the opposite.
And the kicker:However, compared with the D group, the BF group showed a 2.5-fold greater weight loss
That's massive.
"Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper."
Replying to your title question:
We see all kinds of things. How we evaluate them, and what conclusions we draw from them, is a matter of reasoning, buttressed by education.
How we individually eat may be guided by research and reason, but happy compliance is, for most people, a much more important factor than most research findings about timing, when it comes to weight managemement. (One might even reasonably interpret this particular research study as saying something more meaningful about compliance than about timing, with consideration of its methodological limitations, taken in context of the larger body of research in the field. )
Bottom line: If a big breakfast/small dinner lead to success for you, that's what you should do. I'll keep eating right up to bedtime, and maintaining weight just fine.
Happy compliance > nutrient timing. And none of this supports the idea that calories are irrelevant: They all - theoretically - restricted calories significantly, and lost weight . . . free-living, so at varying levels of activity (and most likely varying levels of compliance, as well).12 -
estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weightloss than fat or sugar calories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Another study going the *same way*.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2013.863169Results: Thirty-six subjects completed the study (G1 = 18, G2 = 18). Both groups had significant improvements in body composition and metabolic parameters but G1 had enhanced results for weight loss (G1: −8.2 ± 3.0 kg; G2: −6.5 ± 3.4 kg; p = 0.028),
Got any uhhhhhhh metabolic ward studies? Seriously, every study done on free living subjects is subject to the whims of who wanted to buy a Snickers bar and not tell the stern people in lab coats.
Note: it really is much more a matter of not realizing / recalling than actual lying about intake.
Yeah, we've got dozens and dozens of posts here showing us that even when *highly motivated* humans are terrible at accurately tracking and reporting what they eat, to the point that many of us require devices to help us understand what we're actually consuming. So I take self-reports with a huge grain of salt.13 -
Replying to your title question:
We see all kinds of things. How we evaluate them, and what conclusions we draw from them, is a matter of reasoning, buttressed by education.
How we individually eat may be guided by research and reason, but happy compliance is, for most people, a much more important factor than most research findings about timing, when it comes to weight managemement. (One might even reasonably interpret this particular research study as saying something more meaningful about compliance than about timing, with consideration of its methodological limitations, taken in context of the larger body of research in the field. )
Bottom line: If a big breakfast/small dinner lead to success for you, that's what you should do. I'll keep eating right up to bedtime, and maintaining weight just fine.
Happy compliance > nutrient timing. And none of this supports the idea that calories are irrelevant: They all - theoretically - restricted calories significantly, and lost weight . . . free-living, so at varying levels of activity (and most likely varying levels of compliance, as well).
^^This for me, definitely. I have the lowest amount of willpower and the most cravings to eat in the evenings, and nothing I've ever done has changed that. Knowing this, I save as many calories for evenings as I can so that I can end the day within my goals. So even if I could theoretically burn more calories if I ate more in the morning and less in the evenings, knowing my own willpower, if I tried that, I'd end up eating more in the long run and losing less. And if that means I just need to keep going at it a little longer to lose the total amount I want to, then *shrugs* its' not a race anyway; as long as I get achieve the end result, it don't really matter if I do it in 2 years or 2 years and 2 months......13 -
happysquidmuffin wrote: »Only 30 people? Then it sounds like statistical anomalies and math threw off the data. Not a big enough study to be accurate. The data is just fluff. Especially if their calorie intake wasn’t controlled every day!cmriverside wrote: »Did both groups have the same maintenance cals. if one was higher (BF group) and ate the same cals as the other group they would be expected to lose more. the other possible reason, as noted before, is that bigger breakfast could lead to a higher NEAT.
^^This.
Plus time of day of weigh-ins...plus the set number of calories allegedly eaten, plus - if it were this simple I'm pretty sure we all would have done this.
It's still about calories, not bogus 30 sample "studies."
Just for clarity it was over 90 and they were split into groups...not just 30 people in total.
Thank you, didn’t know it was 90 total. But that’s still only 45 or 30 people per group, so the data is hardly relevant. Needs to be 200+ people each for control group and differing groups, so that each person only contributes half a percent to each category of data. Just my opinion. That way the math doesn’t skew the data out of whack, and less of a chance that a few crazy outliers skew the data too.
3 -
However, compared with the D group, the BF group showed a 2.5-fold greater weight loss
That's massive.
"Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper."
6 -
All participants were given the exact same allotted calories regardless of their height, weight, activity level etc? How is that controlled?7
-
estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weight loss than fat or sugar calories.
@estherpotter1 while this can vary from person to person the question I now ask what will this or that type calorie do to help or harm the make up of my gut microbiome?
Unless it is planned obesity there has to be some type of health issue for obesity to occur. The gut microbiome is one of many factors in mammal health.
In my case for 40 years after each weigh loss I would sooner or later have a 100%+ regain so at 63 I said to heck with weight loss and started working to get more healthy and have better lab results. That was in 2014 when I changed my Way Of Eating without any weight loss objective and eating to never go hungry I accidentally lost 50 pounds without considering how many calories I ate but focused on eating calories that gave me better health and better health markers on my lab tests. That is how I proved in my case the WOE make up of the right kind of calories (that varies from person to person) was more important to me than the number of calories. I did not know about the gut microbiome at that time.
The freedom to eat all I want has changed me both physically and mentally for the better. In 2020 the 50 pound weight loss has not return since it went away in 2015. My new WOE quickly reduced my pain from Ankylosing Spondylitis (arthritis) starting in 2014 so I was able to avoid starting on Enbrel injections for pain management.
If interested read up on the ways one's gut microbiome can change what our bodies do with a calorie after we eat it.
Calories are always a factor but seldom ever the primary cause of long term weight gains or losses.
https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190927135200.htm
2 -
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0256/bf06835c5fc0d3b8eaa9f1e32f46934f3b69.pdf
I am in no way advocating the red wine diet, and the study itself points out that for social drinkers alcohol calories should be treated as normal calories. Nevertheless, it would appear that a calorie is not always a calorie.
I also recommend a new book just out by a bariatric surgeon who has been exploring why people become overweight and obese and has some very interesting things to say:
Why We Eat (Too Much) by Dr Andrew Jenkinson2 -
SnifterPug wrote: »https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0256/bf06835c5fc0d3b8eaa9f1e32f46934f3b69.pdf
I am in no way advocating the red wine diet, and the study itself points out that for social drinkers alcohol calories should be treated as normal calories. Nevertheless, it would appear that a calorie is not always a calorie.
I also recommend a new book just out by a bariatric surgeon who has been exploring why people become overweight and obese and has some very interesting things to say:
Why We Eat (Too Much) by Dr Andrew Jenkinson
I don't think the authors of the alcohol study are arguing that a calorie isn't a calorie. We're talking about a very specific set of circumstances (that I hope are beyond the situation of most people seeking weight loss advice here) and a very small group of people (fourteen) and I believe they're arguing at least part of the impact can be attributed to the damage chronic alcohol abuse does to our body's ability to utilize fat as energy.
Noting that our bodies can be damaged and less able to utilize certain nutrients doesn't invalidate how energy works. This is actually a principle in certain weight loss surgeries and is a known side effect of other illnesses or surgical procedures.6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weight loss than fat or sugar calories.
@estherpotter1 while this can vary from person to person the question I now ask what will this or that type calorie do to help or harm the make up of my gut microbiome?
How is this relevant to the topic of the thread?
In any case, lettuce (which does not have "lettuce cals" only "cals") is typically a positive thing for the gut microbiome (based on what we currently know, which isn't that much).
You cannot generalize about how all sources of fat or all sources of carbs affect the microbiome, but on the whole it's typically believed that getting a wide variety of plant foods is positive for the gut microbiome and tends to lead to greater diversity.Unless it is planned obesity there has to be some type of health issue for obesity to occur.
Nonsense. But also irrelevant to this thread, please start your own to discuss that topic.7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weight loss than fat or sugar calories.
@estherpotter1 while this can vary from person to person the question I now ask what will this or that type calorie do to help or harm the make up of my gut microbiome?
Unless it is planned obesity there has to be some type of health issue for obesity to occur. The gut microbiome is one of many factors in mammal health.
In my case for 40 years after each weigh loss I would sooner or later have a 100%+ regain so at 63 I said to heck with weight loss and started working to get more healthy and have better lab results. That was in 2014 when I changed my Way Of Eating without any weight loss objective and eating to never go hungry I accidentally lost 50 pounds without considering how many calories I ate but focused on eating calories that gave me better health and better health markers on my lab tests. That is how I proved in my case the WOE make up of the right kind of calories (that varies from person to person) was more important to me than the number of calories. I did not know about the gut microbiome at that time.
The freedom to eat all I want has changed me both physically and mentally for the better. In 2020 the 50 pound weight loss has not return since it went away in 2015. My new WOE quickly reduced my pain from Ankylosing Spondylitis (arthritis) starting in 2014 so I was able to avoid starting on Enbrel injections for pain management.
If interested read up on the ways one's gut microbiome can change what our bodies do with a calorie after we eat it.
Calories are always a factor but seldom ever the primary cause of long term weight gains or losses.
https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190927135200.htm
I'd love to hear your explanation for the bolded. If calories aren't the primary cause of weight gains or losses, what is? That's like saying that money isn't the primary factor in whether you have savings or debt. If both cases, if you have an excess, you will end up with weight gain, or savings, and if you don't have enough you will have debt, or weight loss. I'm not saying there aren't other factors that effect how much money a person makes, or how many calories a person consumes, but in the end, gain or loss is solely determined by that one factor.19 -
My main issue with these results is that they don't account for food weight at all. When I eat dinner late I weigh more in the morning regardless of whether I ate more or less calories that day. Sometimes the difference can be as much as 4-5lb depending on the type of food I ate.
The people who ate a larger breakfast had an inherent advantage in supposed weight loss because when they woke up, they (allegedly) hadn't eaten more than 700 calories in the past 16 or so hours. Their bodies had plenty of time to use or get rid of the food they ate, but the large dinner group had eaten 1200 calories in that time frame. There was no point in the day where they hadn't just eaten or eaten less than 700 calories in the past 16 hours. There was simply no comparable time for them to weigh in.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions