Calories are not the same according to Dr. Fuhrman
Replies
-
IMO weight loss may not only be affected by calories in / calories out.... as an example eating 1700 calories of Carbs will have an entirely different effect on fat loss then say eating 1700 calories of Fats and Proteins... also... the amount of exercise will have to be thrown into that equation as well as when these calories are ingested... (are you eating thru out the day or do you eat 1700 cal just before bedweight loss is calorie in, calorie out
health is determined by nutrient content
you're simply talking about two different things.
0 -
You will be sickly if you nothing but junk food for a prolonged period of time.
Sickly?
I beg to differ...I've eaten fast/junk food pretty much all my life...at least 3x a week if not more. When I used to eat lunch every day...I lived on the stuff...and that was almost 20 years of my life.
I lost the second half of my 40lbs I lost in those three months...eating almost nothing but Taco Bell. My profile picture here was the end result. Perfect bloodwork, no negative health markers at my physical around the same time the picture was taken.
*shrug*0 -
Matt Perryman has a good take on this:
http://www.myosynthesis.com/calories-arent-calories0 -
"Calories are not the same" is like saying "muscle weighs more than fat". It is a verbal fallacy. A pound of fat=a pound a muscle. A 100 calories of fries has the same caloric value as a 100 calories of veggies.
You will lose weight eating at a deficit. You will have a different body composition if you eat healthy foods and exercise to get there. If your diet is rich in sodium and sugar you will be bloated and hold onto water weight. You will be sickly if you nothing but junk food for a prolonged period of time.
But a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
Actually it's not. He mentions the exact opposite of what you are stating and that's exactly why I put this subject up for discussion. And your statements are slightly contradictory. To add, he says that eating crappy foods will cause inflammation and will cause you to have a tendency to hold onto or even gain weight. Whether is water weight, fat cells etc.. A side effect of a real crappy diet seems to be toxicity as you are alluding to. And that will hinder health number one and possibly weight number two
A calorie is a unit of energy...
The foods represented in that unit of calorie also will have different micronutrient values that is presented in having different net effects on health directly and possibly weight secondary. Due to the toxicity effects on what that calorie of food has on your body.0 -
three months...eating almost nothing but Taco Bell.
Good luck with your anal rupture goals in 2012.
0 -
The only real difference is accounted for by TEF. Micronutrients probably have long-term health impact, but no impact on weight/body composition that I have been able to determine.0
-
three months...eating almost nothing but Taco Bell.
Good luck with your anal rupture goals in 2012.
Haha no kidding right?
There were reasons for that diet...not 'good' ones...but things were complicated. I do prefer to eat healthier.0 -
"Calories are not the same" is like saying "muscle weighs more than fat". It is a verbal fallacy. A pound of fat=a pound a muscle. A 100 calories of fries has the same caloric value as a 100 calories of veggies.
You will lose weight eating at a deficit. You will have a different body composition if you eat healthy foods and exercise to get there. If your diet is rich in sodium and sugar you will be bloated and hold onto water weight. You will be sickly if you nothing but junk food for a prolonged period of time.
But a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
Actually it's not. He mentions the exact opposite of what you are stating and that's exactly why I put this subject up for discussion. And your statements are slightly contradictory. To add, he says that eating crappy foods will cause inflammation and will cause you to have a tendency to hold onto or even gain weight. Whether is water weight, fat cells etc.. A side effect of a real crappy diet seems to be toxicity as you are alluding to. And that will hinder health number one and possibly weight number two
A calorie is a unit of energy...
The foods represented in that unit of calorie also will have different micronutrient values that is presented in having different net effects on health directly and possibly weight secondary. Due to the toxicity effects on what that calorie of food has on your body.
If you're trying to claim that micronutrient deficiencies can negatively impact health and possibly weight loss, I'd buy that. But I still maintain that it would require a remarkably idiotic diet to get there and I'd further add that given a varied diet where the user is mindful of nutrient density and hits maronutrient sufficiency, the addition of some cake and pie isn't going to hurt.0 -
You will be sickly if you nothing but junk food for a prolonged period of time.
Sickly?
I beg to differ...I've eaten fast/junk food pretty much all my life...at least 3x a week if not more. When I used to eat lunch every day...I lived on the stuff...and that was almost 20 years of my life.
I lost the second half of my 40lbs I lost in those three months...eating almost nothing but Taco Bell. My profile picture here was the end result. Perfect bloodwork, no negative health markers at my physical around the same time the picture was taken.
*shrug*
That's awesome. I'll bet you exercise alot. Most people aren't so lucky, I guess I should have said most people will have an adverse effect on their health.0 -
bump0
-
"Calories are not the same" is like saying "muscle weighs more than fat". It is a verbal fallacy. A pound of fat=a pound a muscle. A 100 calories of fries has the same caloric value as a 100 calories of veggies.
You will lose weight eating at a deficit. You will have a different body composition if you eat healthy foods and exercise to get there. If your diet is rich in sodium and sugar you will be bloated and hold onto water weight. You will be sickly if you nothing but junk food for a prolonged period of time.
But a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
Actually it's not. He mentions the exact opposite of what you are stating and that's exactly why I put this subject up for discussion. And your statements are slightly contradictory. To add, he says that eating crappy foods will cause inflammation and will cause you to have a tendency to hold onto or even gain weight. Whether is water weight, fat cells etc.. A side effect of a real crappy diet seems to be toxicity as you are alluding to. And that will hinder health number one and possibly weight number two
A calorie is a unit of energy...
The foods represented in that unit of calorie also will have different micronutrient values that is presented in having different net effects on health directly and possibly weight secondary. Due to the toxicity effects on what that calorie of food has on your body.
If you're trying to claim that micronutrient deficiencies can negatively impact health and possibly weight loss, I'd buy that. But I still maintain that it would require a remarkably idiotic diet to get there and I'd further add that given a varied diet where the user is mindful of nutrient density and hits maronutrient sufficiency, the addition of some cake and pie isn't going to hurt.
1) yes that's exactly what the Dr. is trying to convey and I loosely agree to that.
2) And yes, it would most likely require people to eat incredibly bad and/or people to be pre-disposed to problems from poor diet. But alot of American do eat incredibly idiotic as exemplied by the rates of obsesity and health problems of the last 50 years
3) No one is trying to say having some treats is going to cause cancer or weight gain.
If anyone that knows me (and you do under another name), knows that I don't advocate all or nothing diets.0 -
Not a really healthy diet I'm getting ready to mention lol..But after my youngest was born, she was a difficult child I didn't have alot of time at home to sleep or even eat...I went back to work when she was 4 weeks old...All I ate for almost 10 months except for when my mom would cook and make me eat. Was string cheese, a double cheeseburger (at work), energy drinks, and an instant breakfast ... I lost over 80 pounds...
I'd have to look into it more but as far as I'm concerned for now a calorie is a calorie.0 -
weight loss is calorie in, calorie out
health is determined by nutrient content
you're simply talking about two different things.
Weight loss IS calorie in, calorie out ultimately ... Even as a keen Low Carb/Paleo kind of guy I'll concede that. You cannae change the laws of thermodynamics.
BUT, I believe that the macronutrient breakdown of those calories has a critical effect in how the weight is lost and, crucially, whether it is fat or lean muscle that is being lost.
I believe that you can influence whether the body is keen to metabolise any fat stores (of which even a relatively lean person has plenty to live on).
I started to make REAL progress when I read up about fat metabolism. I stopped being hungry and deprived and 'on a diet' and started to listen to my body and feed it Real Food with all the fats, protein and healthy carbs (veggies, mostly leafy) that go along with it.
I recently posted a link to a free book on my blog, 64 pages of mostly solid reasons for watching the carbs for my money ...
Now, I have to consider buying new jeans because these are falling off me, life is a *****.
(edit) What really, *kitten* is verboten? Well, that's going to make me smile for the rest of the day. What is this, a kindergarden?0 -
For me if I eat 1600 calories (and work out) of processed foods I remain bloated and uncomfortable. Now I eat 1600 calories of mostly unprocessed foods and work out and I have lost 10 pounds have more energy and the inflammation I have been plagued with is gone. ...for me it is just not calorie in calorie out. When I was younger it was different but, not anymore0
-
bum
Yes, that is what I see in your profile picture!
Interesting discussion. Here's my bum too.
that was suppose to be bump. I would never try to disrespect anyone like that, by saying bum.
We knew...it was just my funny way of bumping too. Besides, your bum IS your profile picture!
lol. you got me on that one.0 -
I only listen to advice from Dr. Spaceman
)
This!0 -
You will be sickly if you nothing but junk food for a prolonged period of time.
Sickly?
I beg to differ...I've eaten fast/junk food pretty much all my life...at least 3x a week if not more. When I used to eat lunch every day...I lived on the stuff...and that was almost 20 years of my life.
I lost the second half of my 40lbs I lost in those three months...eating almost nothing but Taco Bell. My profile picture here was the end result. Perfect bloodwork, no negative health markers at my physical around the same time the picture was taken.
*shrug*
That's awesome. I'll bet you exercise alot. Most people aren't so lucky, I guess I should have said most people will have an adverse effect on their health.
3x a week, less than an hour per session...no cardio...only heavy lifting.
And honestly...if it's going to make you sickly, it's going to make you sickly if you're exercising too. And I don't buy into that 'most people' statement either...I'm no special flower...and to use my new favorite quote to prove it...I take the browns to the superbowl just like you do (wasn't that an awesome conversation Sidesteal?)
Now...what I WILL say I agree with, is that if you have any type of reactions (I mean on a basic level...I don't mean breaking out into hives) to the things in processed food, that will change things. Also...a cleaner diet will ALWAYS be better for you. I just know...first hand, based on my own experiences in very controlled (other than what I was actually eating...due to time and money constraints) scenario...that I very easily lost weight and maintained a nice physique...while eating total crap .The majority of the weight lost from all I can tell...was fat. Over that three months my protein intake fell off as well by the way (chicken, beef, and protein powder are EXPENSIVE).
Again, to clarify...I'm not saying the crap is good for you...I don't believe it is. I'm saying I don't think it's the devil that most people do (again, for the majority of my life I ate junk food...I'm perfectly healthy)...and if you keep within your calorie numbers...you can still lose good weight.
That doesn't mean you should...but it also doesn't mean you can't...and it's not going to make you 'sickly' either way.0 -
Interesting...
Thank you.0 -
For me if I eat 1600 calories (and work out) of processed foods I remain bloated and uncomfortable. Now I eat 1600 calories of mostly unprocessed foods and work out and I have lost 10 pounds have more energy and the inflammation I have been plagued with is gone. ...for me it is just not calorie in calorie out. When I was younger it was different but, not anymore
This is me too. I have pre-diabetes and Hypothyroidism though. I wonder if it's because of these 2 issues or something else that makes my body so wonky about where my calories come from.0 -
If anyone that knows me (and you do under another name), knows that I don't advocate all or nothing diets.
I do...and I admit I initially thought this thread was a joke on your part...until I saw the direction you were actually going with it.0 -
weight loss is calorie in, calorie out
health is determined by nutrient content
you're simply talking about two different things.
This is the medical side of it. Although, different people respond differently to different types of foods. I know that if I do something like the Atkins or South Beach, I don't lose more weight, I just end up exhausted. Other people swear by cutting carbs. Each person has to find what works for them, but health and weight loss are not the same thing.0 -
It would be far less confusing if Dr. Fuhrman didn't use the word "calorie", which, as has been pointed out, is a unit of heat.
Just say "some foods are healthier than others." But then, everyone already knows that...0 -
Well this is an interesting topic...lot's of good information and arguments. It's nice to see the research being done and the arguments following.0
-
I'm listening to one of his books on cd now. I think the distinction here is between weight loss and health. Those two things may or may not be connected, depending on how one goes about it. He says often in this cd that his purpose is not weight loss - that is just a happy by-product. He is focused on disease prevention and optimal health. Nutrient-dense foods certainly have been shown to assist with that. I don't think there is any one perfect eating plan for every single person so I'm careful about becoming evangelical for any of them. We are all walking experiments. However, he is a physican and he has studied nutritional research from a broad range of sources. He offers a lot of good things to consider. 0
-
It would be far less confusing if Dr. Fuhrman didn't use the word "calorie", which, as has been pointed out, is a unit of heat.
Just say "some foods are healthier than others." But then, everyone already knows that...
He states that if one person eats the exact same # of calories but varied greatly in micronutrient values, one could gain and one could lose weight. Depending on how the body is reacting to the food that was eaten. So the word "calorie" must be accounted for. As he's describing units of calorie value for two groups of food.0 -
That seems very questionable. I would be willing to bet that his experiments don't control for thermic effect of food, which is the most common error I see in nutritional research.It would be far less confusing if Dr. Fuhrman didn't use the word "calorie", which, as has been pointed out, is a unit of heat.
Just say "some foods are healthier than others." But then, everyone already knows that...
He states that if one person eats the exact same # of calories but varied greatly in micronutrient values, one could gain and one could lose weight. Depending on how the body is reacting to the food that was eaten. So the word "calorie" must be accounted for. As he's describing units of calorie value for two groups of food.0 -
He states that if one person eats the exact same # of calories but varied greatly in micronutrient values, one could gain and one could lose weight. Depending on how the body is reacting to the food that was eaten. So the word "calorie" must be accounted for. As he's describing units of calorie value for two groups of food.
Interesting. Does he have any actual data gathered through a scientific study?0 -
Total calorie intake is the greatest predictor of weight loss, regardless of macro/micro nutrients. However macro/micro nutrients are important for managing appetite, health markers, and adherence to the diet. If you feel like crap on the twinkie diet, you might temporarily lose weight, but you won't last too long on this diet.0
-
That seems very questionable. I would be willing to bet that his experiments don't control for thermic effect of food, which is the most common error I see in nutritional research.It would be far less confusing if Dr. Fuhrman didn't use the word "calorie", which, as has been pointed out, is a unit of heat.
Just say "some foods are healthier than others." But then, everyone already knows that...
He states that if one person eats the exact same # of calories but varied greatly in micronutrient values, one could gain and one could lose weight. Depending on how the body is reacting to the food that was eaten. So the word "calorie" must be accounted for. As he's describing units of calorie value for two groups of food.
He's not looking at food as a unit of calorie. ie.. a caloric value could be identical inbetween two groups of foods. But the micronutrient values and the way those nutrients affect the body's health first and weight second are what accounts for the differences.0 -
He states that if one person eats the exact same # of calories but varied greatly in micronutrient values, one could gain and one could lose weight. Depending on how the body is reacting to the food that was eaten. So the word "calorie" must be accounted for. As he's describing units of calorie value for two groups of food.
Interesting. Does he have any actual data gathered through a scientific study?
Not that I've seen. But doesn't concern himself with weight loss as the main issue of his diets.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions