is a calorie just a calorie?

okay so we're clear. here is my debate.

1. those studies are BS, as most are. So those aren't valid.
I think some of them even use BIA method to calculate Bodyfat, obviously hydration plays a role in this and we know the effect of low carb diets and hydration.

2. TEF, i claim there is a metabolic advantage to low carb diets assuming calorie consumption is equal. I was slightly confused on joe's comment about this.

3. Insulin, any program that reduces weight will automatically reduce insulin. Don't get sassy with the fat consumption.
If carb reduction didn't have any effect on insulin i'd agree. As I said if you reduce calories, do low carb, paleo, or whatever you do... it will reduce insulin.

ETA: I think a big problem is "theoretical" weight loss and actual weight loss. In theory i can lose 2lbs a week consuming lets say 2,500 calories. If most of my calories come from carbs, it doesn't happen. If most come from protein it does. In theory the carbs would produce the same effect, being calorie per calorie.

Hold protein and cals constant which would have a higher TEF a high cho/low fat or high fat/low cho diet?

And yet even though fasting insulin greatly decreases in low carb, they don't show significantly greater fat loss, holding cals and protein constant. oops

Okay i'll agree with you in this case in terms of TEF. The moderate carb based group would have a higher TEF. Yet weight loss is still the same.

You still haven't answered me, what was your cutting method. I also know you're bulking or where bulking, i know you're not bulking eating lean cuts of meats.

PS, is there any studies of these type of diets on leaner individuals?

Acg7 - I never said anything of the sort (that you would get fatter), if you go back to Page 1. I said a calorie wasn't a calorie and that you would not reach your goals (unless they are very modest goals) on the Twinkie Diet. I also advocated high protein meats/eggs and fibrous vegetables as the basis of a good fat loss diet.

I'd like YOU tell me how juicing an orange versus eating an orange is the same thing, because it's not. That's like saying eating boiled wheat is the same as eating wheat flour of the same portion. How your body has to process food has a huge impact on whether you store it as fat or use it as fuel. Every time you process it, sugar/carbs go up, fiber goes down, and nutrition is lost, regardless of whether you are in calorie surplus or deficit.

Acg7 - I never said anything of the sort (that you would get fatter), if you go back to Page 1. I said a calorie wasn't a calorie and that you would not reach your goals (unless they are very modest goals) on the Twinkie Diet. I also advocated high protein meats/eggs and fibrous vegetables as the basis of a good fat loss diet.

And what did you mean by the below, particularly the bolded?

I'd like YOU tell me how juicing an orange versus eating an orange is the same thing, because it's not. That's like saying eating boiled wheat is the same as eating wheat flour of the same portion. How your body has to process food has a huge impact on whether you store it as fat or use it as fuel. Every time you process it, sugar/carbs go up, fiber goes down, and nutrition is lost, regardless of whether you are in calorie surplus or deficit.

Acg67 -

I think the bolded portion is self explanatory, so I'm not quite certain what you would like me to expound. What I am saying is that if you take a whole food, for example an apple, and you make from it apple cider and drink it, all the cells have been opened and all the liquid (essentially sugar water) has been released. This is different than you eating the apple, where chunks of it enter your gut and your body is then required to expend energy to release the sugars, therefore reducing net calories that are available to you. Therefore, eating the apple is better for fat loss than drinking the cider (not that fruit is wonderful for fat loss, but you get the point). Basically, the calories are time-released to your system instead of coming in bursts.

In the same vein, a whole grain is better than a whole flour is better than a white flour. The more complex the carb, the better it is for fat loss, and every time you process it before you eat it, you make it easier for your body to get the calories - which is inimical to calorie control and weight loss.

Is that more clear?

An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women

http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract

Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.

Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201

In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.

Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial

http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.

No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862

CONCLUSION:
This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.

Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full

Summary
The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation.