is a calorie just a calorie?

2456

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    He's right. They don't have a metabolic advantage over just normal dieting via eating a moderate calorie deficit.

    I would agree there isn't a "metabolic advantage" in the way some people claim, all the energy changes are accounted for. If that's what you mean.

    I do believe low carb or LCHF as the Swedes call it is more effective, but don't claim any magic metabolic advantage like you can eat any amount of calories as long as they aren't carbs as some have done.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    He's right. They don't have a metabolic advantage over just normal dieting via eating a moderate calorie deficit.

    I would agree there isn't a "metabolic advantage" in the way some people claim, all the energy changes are accounted for. If that's what you mean.

    I do believe low carb or LCHF as the Swedes call it is more effective, but don't claim any magic metabolic advantage like you can eat any amount of calories as long as they aren't carbs as some have done.

    Keto diets are really just a SLIGHTLY faster method of releasing water and glycogen. But as far as fat loss, very minimal difference.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets.

    Didn't show the opposite either, and both were reduced carbohydrate which is what I was advocating. The research I have done comes out with either inconclusive outcomes or favouring the low carb approach, but there's so much out there I would be interested to see something that comes out the other way.

    Of course in the above study the key is to be found at the bottom: " HH is an employee of Zone Labs Inc. BS is a stockholder and serves on the boards of directors of Zone Labs Inc and Zone Cuisine Inc; he is also on the boards of directors of Zone Café and ZoneNet. None of the *other authors* had any personal or financial conflict of interest. "

    Oops.
  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    And if you are in net cal deficit for the day, it doesn't matter. No need to be scared of the insulin fairy.

    seems more efficient to banish the insulin fairy and be able to pull on fat reserves 24/24 rather than just after the glucose has got out of the way. But I don't disagree. You need a deficit to cause a loss, if you were on a drip of insulin it wouldn't happen though, so low carb gives me the best chance I feel.

    Actually it's silly to try and micromanage the acute processes when you can just remain in a calorie deficit over time, and fat oxidation will exceed fat storage regardless of short term insulin fluctuations. So much easier.

    See here:
    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Do some research

    Done plenty, actual low carb (as opposed to "a bit less") studies aren't that common, nor those with sufficient time on the diets to allow full adaptation. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969.full seems a fair example "Weight loss was greater for women in the Atkins diet group compared with the other diet groups at 12 months, and mean 12-month weight loss was significantly different between the Atkins and Zone diets (P<.05). "

    Got an example to show me where low carb comes out worse than low fat, with similar protein ?

    Why restrict to ad lib ? don't you disappear into a fog of reporting uncertainty then ?

    lol the A to Z weightloss study? Isn't it odd after 4 months none of the groups lost any more weight and in fact all diets group gained weight from the 6 month period on?

    Here's the exact same setup with diff results

    Dansinger ML, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets for Weight Loss and Heart Disease Risk Reduction. JAMA, 2005; 293: 43-53.
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/293/1/43.full
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Actually it's silly to try and micromanage the acute processes when you can just remain in a calorie deficit over time, and fat oxidation will exceed fat storage regardless of short term insulin fluctuations. So much easier.

    Not sure what's easier, I like the food I eat now and I don't have any hunger at all and no blood sugar roller coaster so I'm happy to be keto adapted and largely carb free.

    Interesting link, thanks, I liked his peaks and troughs chart showing meals. I guess I have more of a level line with less ups and downs. Pity there are few studies without slugs of carbs in both the lower and higher protein cases when looking at insulin responses. Some protein + carbs vs protein + fat ones would be nice.
  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member

    Not sure what's easier,

    I'm sure it works for you, I should have clarified what I meant: In terms of most dieters trying to analyze the overall efficacy of their diet -- it's not necessary at all to focus on acute things such as:

    "What's going to happen if I eat that high GI food and my insulin spikes"

    or

    "Am I burning carbs or fat during my workout"

    The entire line of thinking is silly because it focuses on the acute and not the big picture. Using the insulin example, if you (anyone, not you specifically) just eat at a deficit and consume adequate macronutrition, fat oxidation exceeds fat storage. The acute part is irrelevant when you pan out.

    That' s what I meant by ease, just to be clear.
  • thelovelyLIZ
    thelovelyLIZ Posts: 1,227 Member
    I think you need to look at the nutritional value of the calories you're eating as well. A bowl of vegetables may have 250 calories just like a can of soda, but those vegetables are going to have a lot more vitamins, minerals, and other good things for you to keep your body running smoothly.

    So while you COULD lose weight eating twinkies and big macs, you will probably feel a lot different than if you lost weight eating fruits, vegetables, whole grain and lean protein.
  • earlyxer
    earlyxer Posts: 240 Member

    1. A calorie is a calorie for weight loss.
    NO IT IS NOT. THE ENERGY EXPENDITURE TO DIGEST EACH TYPE OF CALORIE IS DIFFERENT SO NET CALORIES CONSUMED VARIES WHETHER IT IS A CARB, PROTEIN, OR FAT.
    2. The analogy in your 2nd paragraph is mind boggling.
    IT IS NOT AN ANALOGY, IT IS AN EXAMPLE - AND IT IS TRUE.
    3. If you eat so many carbs that it causes you to eat a calorie surplus above your TDEE, you'll get fat. It could even come from fruits and veggies. You'll still get fat.
    I AGREE. HOWEVER, FIBROUS VEGETABLES ARE SO LOW IN CALORIC DENSITY YOU'D EXPLODE BEFORE YOU'D EAT ENOUGH BROCCOLI TO HIT 2100 CALORIES
    4. Please do more research before commenting.
    HEED YOUR OWN ADVICE.
    5. As far as your "twinkie" thing. Go here --> http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html -
    LOAD UP ON TWINKIES, THEN. GO FOR IT.
    6. High protein doesn't burn fat. It helps repair broken muscle tissue, and helps retain LBM when dieting.
    I NEVER SAID HIGH PROTEIN BURNS FAT. HIGH PROTEIN REPAIRS MUSCLE AND AT THE SAME TIME GENERATES A FEELING OF SATIATION THAT QUELLS HUNGER THAT SIMPLE CARBS AND FATS DO NOT WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HELPING TO RETAIN MUSCLE THAT OTHERWISE MAY BE CONSUMED WHEN IN A CALORIE DEFICIT.
    7. And yes we are correct, it doesn't matter as long as you hit your targets and stay within your calorie intake goals based on the particular weight loss or weight gain goal you have.
    FINE - THEN EAT STRICTLY CARBS AND FATS AND WE'LL HAVE A FAT LOSS COMPETITION. YOU WILL LOSE.
    8. Meal timing doesn't matter. IRRELEVANT.
    - I NEVER MENTIONED TIMING, YOUR COMMENT IS IRRELEVANT.
    9. Food type doesn't matter. IRRELEVANT.
    - SEE NUMBER 8
    10. Edited so I don't hurt anyone's feelings over the internet.
    - GO STUDY SOME MORE
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Isn't it odd after 4 months none of the groups lost any more weight and in fact all diets group gained weight from the 6 month period on?

    indeed. Seems to happen in most studies when they're allowed home and revert to their old ways. The "Atkins" group at 12 months for example had 34.5% of their energy from carbs in month 12 - not sure what version of Atkins that's supposed to be. Despite that, the Atkins group did best at weight loss as shown at http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969/F2.expansion.html

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/293/1/43.full is unfortunately laughable, with very low adherence. Look at the carbohydrate intakes again - 54 to 223 grams/day by month two. Not a low carb diet unfortunately. But given all that there was " no statistically significant differences between diets" so I'm still looking at a positive bias in study outcomes overall favouring low carb.
  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    ^ Are you mad?

    EDIT: Dammit, someone snuck in before I could post that.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member

    1. A calorie is a calorie for weight loss.
    NO IT IS NOT. THE ENERGY EXPENDITURE TO DIGEST EACH TYPE OF CALORIE IS DIFFERENT SO NET CALORIES CONSUMED VARIES WHETHER IT IS A CARB, PROTEIN, OR FAT.
    2. The analogy in your 2nd paragraph is mind boggling.
    IT IS NOT AN ANALOGY, IT IS AN EXAMPLE - AND IT IS TRUE.
    3. If you eat so many carbs that it causes you to eat a calorie surplus above your TDEE, you'll get fat. It could even come from fruits and veggies. You'll still get fat.
    I AGREE. HOWEVER, FIBROUS VEGETABLES ARE SO LOW IN CALORIC DENSITY YOU'D EXPLODE BEFORE YOU'D EAT ENOUGH BROCCOLI TO HIT 2100 CALORIES
    4. Please do more research before commenting.
    HEED YOUR OWN ADVICE.
    5. As far as your "twinkie" thing. Go here --> http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html -
    LOAD UP ON TWINKIES, THEN. GO FOR IT.
    6. High protein doesn't burn fat. It helps repair broken muscle tissue, and helps retain LBM when dieting.
    I NEVER SAID HIGH PROTEIN BURNS FAT. HIGH PROTEIN REPAIRS MUSCLE AND AT THE SAME TIME GENERATES A FEELING OF SATIATION THAT QUELLS HUNGER THAT SIMPLE CARBS AND FATS DO NOT.
    7. And yes we are correct, it doesn't matter as long as you hit your targets and stay within your calorie intake goals based on the particular weight loss or weight gain goal you have.
    FINE - THEN EAT STRICTLY CARBS AND FATS AND WE'LL HAVE A FAT LOSS COMPETITION. YOU WILL LOSE.
    8. Meal timing doesn't matter. IRRELEVANT.
    - I NEVER MENTIONED TIMING, YOUR COMMENT IS IRRELEVANT.
    9. Food type doesn't matter. IRRELEVANT.
    - SEE NUMBER 6
    10. Edited so I don't hurt anyone's feelings over the internet.
    - GO STUDY SOME MORE

    30b.jpg
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    That' s what I meant by ease, just to be clear.

    I follow you. For simplicity I agree - get an honest deficit and stick to it.

    I happen to find low carb easier to follow at high deficits, because I'm not climbing the walls on a glycemic see saw, and I do believe that if someone is trying to find 200 cals to complete their daily food then fats & proteins would be to their advantage compared to carbs.

    I would see low carb as near impossible for vegans and fairly difficult for vegetarians though, you can have too many restrictions and end up with no solution.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    ^ Are you mad?

    EDIT: Dammit, someone snuck in before I could post that.

    sorry :-)
  • needtoloselaura
    needtoloselaura Posts: 19
    Thanks for really explaining the process! It really shed some light to me! Good Luck on your goals!
  • suziecue66
    suziecue66 Posts: 1,312 Member
    Yarwell how long have you been at this low carb? You sound very enthusiastic about it like most newbies, I was once too. It's effective in the short term but not long term.
  • monty619
    monty619 Posts: 1,308 Member
    hit macros/cals. Eat a variety of foods to cover micronutrients.

    All good :smile:

    ^^what he said. now there is a difference between the types of proteins (amino acid profiles) and fats you eat (considering poly, mono, and saturated fats) so u need to eat a balance of those but for carbs as long as you can cover the micronutrients u can eat whatever carb desired.
  • djatk
    djatk Posts: 9
    A calorie is not just a calorie when it comes to different foods. This is because different foods require differing amounts of effort to metabolize — that is, to liberate the calories so they are added to our body. Protein, for example, requires 25% more energy to digest compared to fat. What this means is that when you eat protein, you increase post-meal calorie burn by up to 35%. So in addition to limiting calorie intake you want to focus on the foods that cause metabolism to increase. The effect is to lower the actual amount of calories absorbed by your body.

    I'm going to start a new thread on how to boost metabolism and put what I've learned there. Maybe more people will contribute too!
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    And if you are in net cal deficit for the day, it doesn't matter. No need to be scared of the insulin fairy.

    seems more efficient to banish the insulin fairy and be able to pull on fat reserves 24/24 rather than just after the glucose has got out of the way. But I don't disagree. You need a deficit to cause a loss, if you were on a drip of insulin it wouldn't happen though, so low carb gives me the best chance I feel.

    Too bad low card/keto diets have no metabolic advantage

    WHere you get this? sounds like lyle, the same guy who recommends cutting out carbs for cutting.

    I'm off to the gym but find me tightly controlled studies other then the Kekwick and Pawan studies or the Rabst studies to show me otherwise
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Yarwell how long have you been at this low carb? You sound very enthusiastic about it like most newbies, I was once too. It's effective in the short term but not long term.

    Two years

    or is it three
  • earlyxer
    earlyxer Posts: 240 Member
    [/quote]

    30b.jpg
    [/quote]

    I agree - but with joejccva71, it was not only necessary, but required.
  • CatieBuck
    CatieBuck Posts: 7
    I have no idea if anyone shared this sort of info but I was doing weightwatchers and just could afford it anymore. Anyways if you know about the program they recently changed it and they USED to be more calorie based. They come to realize that if you take a 100 cal bag of potato chip vrs. a 100 cal fresh fruit salad they work differently in your body. Obviously your body is more responsive in a good way to a fresh fruit salad. It's not only more nutritous but WAY more filling and it revs up your metabolism just a bit more. I think that the best way to think of it when putting those calories in your body. So with my knowledge of their program and mix it in with this program I more aware of what I'm putting in my body. I hope this helps!:smile:
  • em9371
    em9371 Posts: 1,047 Member
    hit macros/cals. Eat a variety of foods to cover micronutrients.

    All good :smile:

    ^^^
    this. Everything in moderation.
    I have lost weight sticking to calories but eating junk, I have also lost from making healthy choices most of the time and just having 'bad' stuff a few times a week.
    Get all your macros in, eat plenty of fruit & veg, and if you have calories over have a little treat!

    You will lose weight both ways, but will be healthier by going for the overall balanced diet.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    And if you are in net cal deficit for the day, it doesn't matter. No need to be scared of the insulin fairy.

    seems more efficient to banish the insulin fairy and be able to pull on fat reserves 24/24 rather than just after the glucose has got out of the way. But I don't disagree. You need a deficit to cause a loss, if you were on a drip of insulin it wouldn't happen though, so low carb gives me the best chance I feel.

    Too bad low card/keto diets have no metabolic advantage

    WHere you get this? sounds like lyle, the same guy who recommends cutting out carbs for cutting.

    I'm off to the gym but find me tightly controlled studies other then the Kekwick and Pawan studies or the Rabst studies to show me otherwise

    Okay find me a study that supports your claims that's not the Johnston study from The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

    Let's start with these

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/20/10/1104.full.pdf

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/21/11/1291.full.pdf

    http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/11/4480.full

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968851

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561057

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2319073
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    II read some of them, now here's the question. Low carb diets does cause some water weight loss initially. Lets say 5lbs. This would give a favorable advantage in terms of weight loss for any low carb group. If fat loss is the same, the low carb group will still be ahead 5lbs regardless due to the water/glycogen loss.

    Yet these studies say weight loss is the same, this won't be possible. I sense bogus studies.

    ETA: "I became interested in the ketogenic diet two and one-half years ago when I used a modified
    form (called a cyclical ketogenic diet) to reach a level of leanness that was previously impossible
    using other diets" - Kyle Mcdonald pg. 5 "The Ketogenic Diet"

    Read them and then critique them and tell me why you think they are bogus.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    And if you are in net cal deficit for the day, it doesn't matter. No need to be scared of the insulin fairy.

    seems more efficient to banish the insulin fairy and be able to pull on fat reserves 24/24 rather than just after the glucose has got out of the way. But I don't disagree. You need a deficit to cause a loss, if you were on a drip of insulin it wouldn't happen though, so low carb gives me the best chance I feel.

    Too bad low card/keto diets have no metabolic advantage

    WHere you get this? sounds like lyle, the same guy who recommends cutting out carbs for cutting.

    I'm off to the gym but find me tightly controlled studies other then the Kekwick and Pawan studies or the Rabst studies to show me otherwise

    Okay find me a study that supports your claims that's not the Johnston study from The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

    Let's start with these

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/20/10/1104.full.pdf

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/21/11/1291.full.pdf

    http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/11/4480.full

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968851

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561057

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2319073

    II read some of them, now here's the question. Low carb diets does cause some water weight loss initially. Lets say 5lbs. This would give a favorable advantage in terms of weight loss for any low carb group. If fat loss is the same, the low carb group will still be ahead 5lbs regardless due to the water/glycogen loss.

    Yet these studies say weight loss is the same, this won't be possible. I sense bogus studies.

    ETA: "I became interested in the ketogenic diet two and one-half years ago when I used a modified
    form (called a cyclical ketogenic diet) to reach a level of leanness that was previously impossible
    using other diets" - Lyle Mcdonald pg. 5 "The Ketogenic Diet"

    Not by burning fat though bro. He cycled the keto diet off and on for a period of time. He didn't remain in ketosis very long at all and always had bountiful refeeds. He lost a great deal of water when he leaned out.

    The point being: Whether you do UD 2.0, RFL or a keto diet.....it is NOT FASTER over the LONG TERM than a STANDARD moderate calorie deficit diet in terms of FAT LOSS.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    II read some of them, now here's the question. Low carb diets does cause some water weight loss initially. Lets say 5lbs.

    I think it's less than that, but all diets lose some water which is stored with the fat. It gets included in the Fat Free Mass (FFM) figure. The fat mass is usually also reported separately.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    And if you are in net cal deficit for the day, it doesn't matter. No need to be scared of the insulin fairy.

    seems more efficient to banish the insulin fairy and be able to pull on fat reserves 24/24 rather than just after the glucose has got out of the way. But I don't disagree. You need a deficit to cause a loss, if you were on a drip of insulin it wouldn't happen though, so low carb gives me the best chance I feel.

    Too bad low card/keto diets have no metabolic advantage

    WHere you get this? sounds like lyle, the same guy who recommends cutting out carbs for cutting.

    I'm off to the gym but find me tightly controlled studies other then the Kekwick and Pawan studies or the Rabst studies to show me otherwise

    Okay find me a study that supports your claims that's not the Johnston study from The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

    Let's start with these

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/20/10/1104.full.pdf

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/21/11/1291.full.pdf

    http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/11/4480.full

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968851

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561057

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2319073

    II read some of them, now here's the question. Low carb diets does cause some water weight loss initially. Lets say 5lbs. This would give a favorable advantage in terms of weight loss for any low carb group. If fat loss is the same, the low carb group will still be ahead 5lbs regardless due to the water/glycogen loss.

    Yet these studies say weight loss is the same, this won't be possible. I sense bogus studies.

    ETA: "I became interested in the ketogenic diet two and one-half years ago when I used a modified
    form (called a cyclical ketogenic diet) to reach a level of leanness that was previously impossible
    using other diets" - Lyle Mcdonald pg. 5 "The Ketogenic Diet"

    Not by burning fat though bro. He cycled the keto diet off and on for a period of time. He didn't remain in ketosis very long at all and always had bountiful refeeds. He lost a great deal of water when he leaned out.

    The point being: Whether you do UD 2.0, RFL or a keto diet.....it is NOT FASTER over the LONG TERM than a STANDARD moderate calorie deficit diet in terms of FAT LOSS.

    okay yes, i remember you mentioning the water weight for leanness. I agree it's not faster. You also have to think of the thermogenics of food, is that a myth? something here isn't making sense. Theoretically we expend more calories digesting protein which in turn would produce faster weight loss.

    It's not a myth...

    The thermal effect of feeding has to do with the calorie expenditure associated with eating food on a macronutrient basis, and not the type of food. (Actually this is to answer the guy earlier in the thread that objected with what I said lol). Protein, Carbs, and Fiber = Higher TEF. Fats = Lower.

    However, it still boils down to calculating overall TDEE (which is composed of TEF), and eating a moderate deficit. So using this, if you were to eat lower carbs, you aren't actually raising your TEF..therefore you aren't burning as much....theoretically. It gets more complicated but the point is....ketogenic diets aren't any faster in terms of fat loss.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/1/44.full.pdf

    "Average weight loss was significantly (P 0.006) greater with the LC diet
    than with the MC diet: 6.34 and 4.35 kg, respectively "

    Fig 5 and Table 4.

    Low carb diet had a 2lb water loss, MC diet 0.5 lb.

    "When considered over the span of 4 wk, however, only 35% of
    the difference in total weight loss between the 2 diets was accounted for by water depletion. The remainder of the difference
    was accounted for mainly by fat mass and some lean mass."
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/1/44.full.pdf

    "Average weight loss was significantly (P 0.006) greater with the LC diet
    than with the MC diet: 6.34 and 4.35 kg, respectively "

    Fig 5 and Table 4.

    Low carb diet had a 2lb water loss, MC diet 0.5 lb.

    "When considered over the span of 4 wk, however, only 35% of
    the difference in total weight loss between the 2 diets was accounted for by water depletion. The remainder of the difference
    was accounted for mainly by fat mass and some lean mass."
    Conclusion: In the short term, high-protein, low-carbohydrate
    ketogenic diets reduce hunger and lower food intake significantly
    more than do high-protein, medium-carbohydrate nonketogenic
    diets. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:44 –55

    ;-) Need i say more?

Categories