A Calorie is a Calorie, Right!

Thread belongs in "Debate Club", if you ask me.

Apparently I'm not a rat or mouse. I'm a post-menopausal, aging, severely hypothyroid woman, formerly long-term obese/overweight.

I lost fine eating near the MFP default of 50% carbs, and exceeded the MFP total sugars default goal every single day. All my health markers improved: Blood pressure, cholesterol, all that jazz, formerly bad, now totally fine. I've maintained a healthy weight for nearly 8 years, still eating carbs (225g+ most days) and sugars (averaging 90g+ daily, mostly inherent not added sugars).

I don't have (never had) diabetes or insulin resistance. That may make a difference, I can't say.

All I can say is that I lost/maintain weight fine, eating around my calorie goal on average, with plenty of carbs/sugars in the picture. My doctors are very happy with my health markers, across the board. So am I.

Studies in humans that equalize both protein and calorie intake have shown negligible difference in low carb vs. low fat diets. Human studies are always fraught, because we can't lock people in a metabolic chamber long term and control their intake strictly, so these are mostly short term studies, or based on self-reports over a longer term. That's a theoretical weakness.

Here's a consumer-friendly article on a major year-long study that controlled for these difficulties about as well as one might hope. The article's from a sound (evidence-based) outfit, not an advocacy group, and it has links to the supporting research. The study was done by an institute founded by a low-carb advocate.

https://examine.com/articles/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Thread belongs in "Debate Club", if you ask me.

Apparently I'm not a rat or mouse. I'm a post-menopausal, aging, severely hypothyroid woman, formerly long-term obese/overweight.

I lost fine eating near the MFP default of 50% carbs, and exceeded the MFP total sugars default goal every single day. All my health markers improved: Blood pressure, cholesterol, all that jazz, formerly bad, now totally fine. I've maintained a healthy weight for nearly 8 years, still eating carbs (225g+ most days) and sugars (averaging 90g+ daily, mostly inherent not added sugars).

I don't have (never had) diabetes or insulin resistance. That may make a difference, I can't say.

All I can say is that I lost/maintain weight fine, eating around my calorie goal on average, with plenty of carbs/sugars in the picture. My doctors are very happy with my health markers, across the board. So am I.

Studies in humans that equalize both protein and calorie intake have shown negligible difference in low carb vs. low fat diets. Human studies are always fraught, because we can't lock people in a metabolic chamber long term and control their intake strictly, so these are mostly short term studies, or based on self-reports over a longer term. That's a theoretical weakness.

Here's a consumer-friendly article on a major year-long study that controlled for these difficulties about as well as one might hope. The article's from a sound (evidence-based) outfit, not an advocacy group, and it has links to the supporting research. The study was done by an institute founded by a low-carb advocate.

https://examine.com/articles/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/

I just want to point out a few things regarding that study.

Christopher Gardener the lead author for this study is the director of nutritional studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Centre and he's also the director of Stanford's Plant Based Diet Initiative which is also funded by Beyond Meat who clearly has advocated for mostly a plant based diet throughout his career. Nothing wrong with that, just mentioning this fact.

Looking at the study and I'll just get to the points that I believe are relevant.

The participants in the low carb group after the initial adjustment period were consuming down to around 100g's a day at the 3 month mark and after 12 months they were consuming around 130g's a day. The RDI for carbohydrates are 130, and basically what they ended up consuming. Any low carb researcher will tell us that 50g's would be considered low carb and many will say less, down to 20g's a day in carbohydrates. Won't get into the details on how the participants recorded what they ate or how the data was collected but just say, not controlled at all.

Therefore not very surprised that the differences were not very relevant, but the other interesting result was the group that consumed fewer carbs also raised their HDL significantly and lowered their triglycerides. No mention of particle size of LDL or oxidative damage which is indicative of lower HDL and higher trigs, not surprised considering those implications.

Basically and practically this study was comparing in the end the difference from consuming 200g's with 130g's of carbs a day and not really comparing a genuine low carb diet, which is a pretty common occurrence throughout the literature over the years and this one is no different really. Anyway, if it were a choice I would rather have a diet that improved my HDL and lowers my triglycerides and still get to eat the RDI for carbohydrates.

You can eat 1500 calories a day of McDonalds and lose weight.

You can eat 1500 calories of whole foods a day and lose the same weight.

The difference is one will make you feel like crap in the long run because of less nutrients.

The rats that were given a high carb diet gained weight and had illnesses. The Rats or mice that were given a low carb diet became healthier. The calorie counts were the same for both groups.

But of course one can eat the same calories and one group get sick and other not - if one diet is full of nutritious foods and other diet is some extreme of non nutrition

That doesnt negate a calorie being a calorie - just like, using somebody's previous example - I could walk a mile on the road or a mile in sand - one would take longer and perhaps give me sore muscles - but the mile distance is still the same.

and it is possible diets which make you feel crap lead to indirect changes in the OUT equation - ie you move less when you are not feeling healthy. That would apply even to rats.

so Aesop, it seems a low calorie diet and some form of restricted eating time works for you.

Thats great! - we all need t o find a sustainable way of eating that works for us long term.

It doesn't however negate the basic 'a calorie is a calorie' statement.

oops my post was supposed to say so Aesop, it seems a low carb diet and some form of restricted eating time works for you.