A Calorie Is... NOT A Calorie...

So we've all heard "A Calorie Is A Calorie..."

Would someone like to explain this, then... Because it would appear to me that a calorie is NOT a calorie...

Or how about this one?

There is a lot we can't account for or explain in the world. We only know how to use 10% of our brain. We only understand 10% of the universe (or less). We don't even know why we're here.

One thing that is a solid fact, however, is that people on low-carb, high-fat diets lose more weight than people on low-fat diets. Regardless of who told you "A Calorie Is A Calorie Is A Calorie" - There are a number of studies out there that prove that a calorie IS NOT a calorie.

There are too many factors that we can't account for. For example: We calculate that 1g of carbohydrates = 4 calories, 1g of protein = 4 calories, and 1g of fat = 9 calories. However, all of these calculations were done in a bomb calorimeter. Our bodies ARE NOT bomb calorimeters! We don't use calories as efficiently as a machine. Humans are far from perfect.

Also, not every single calorie we eat goes to energy production. Our body uses proteins to manufacture and repair skin, blood, hair, fingernails, toenails, etc daily.  This manufacturing/repairing takes approximately 1g Protein per 1kg Lean Body Mass. So, let's say for example we have a person who weighs 70kg. This person eats 70g of protein a day that are used to rebuild his/her body. That's 70g of protein that SHOULD NOT be added to his/her calorie count - his body isn't using these calories for energy, it's using them for basic needs.

And what about fat calories? The body uses fat to manufature bile acids and hormones... So the calories for those processes don't count either...

My point is that a calorie is not a calorie. It does matter a great deal what you put into your body. Low-Carb diets are going to continue to yield greater results than Low-Fat diets.

Just thought I'd share this with you

thought provoking, to say the least.  will have to read more thoroughly later...

Question Everything

hybrids05, can you cite some studies that prove that low-carb dieters lose more weight than low-fat dieters?

A little while ago I cited a study that proved the two groups fared pretty much the same as far as total weight loss.  However, the high carb group did better at keeping it off.

You can read about the study at http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstor y.cfm?storyid=15915

Although dieters in the two groups maintained similar weight loss at 12 months, researchers report members of the low-carb group were more likely to gain back their lost weight, which means a reduced caloric intake may be harder to sustain on a low-carb diet.

Susan Roberts, Ph.D., director of the United States Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging's Energy Metabolism Laboratory, told Ivanhoe this study should show people losing weight and keeping it off is possible, and it can be done in a variety of ways to suit different lifestyles and preferences.

"There isn't one perfect way to lose weight and keep it off," Dr. Roberts said. "That is good news, because it means you don't have to follow a plan you hate, but can shop around for something that works for you personally."

"The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about seven pounds. But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said."


How did they prove that the weight "lost" on Atkins wasn't muscle or water?

Or that the people who weren't on Atkins, didn't build more muscle, weighing more, because carbs are needed for muscle gain?

The references for the second article, one is from a general prac.  I don't know that kind of doctor the second reference is for, but it doesn't sounds very legit.

Can you pull up some more recent articles by doctors and scientists in the field?  I'm really curious to know.

lol ~ radical!

;)

seriously, there is so much left to understand and obesity and weight loss and health matters seem to be more complex than any simple explanation ~ so the medical/scientific community argues all of this hotly....

so how are we to know & understand, as just someone who needs to know for their own personal needs.

it can be overwhelming.

for me, it helps to boil things down to simple ideas... like fiber in foods helps to keep us satisfied, protein and some healthy fats combined with a carb in meals or snacks will stick to our ribs longer ===> help to keep us satisfied...

and then i can begin to cope.

when prolonged plateaus occur or weight loss does not occur despite following simple ideas, thats when it's important to examine alternatives...

and always, to make the best choices we can each meal & snack & exercise session...

but dang it, sometimes only choklit will do, and then i choose it within my daily calorie limits and enjoy it. Guilt Free!

Long Live Choklit!

It is it's own food category

;)

:::giggles & grins ear2ear:::

My memory might fail me but from what I've read, low-carb dieters lose weight more quickly than low-fat but low-fat dieters tend to keep the weight off longer.

Also, I know that regarding my own body... a calorie is definitely, not a calorie. 

Here's 3 to start...

"In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories on the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was that volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost 20 pounds." (Source1) (Source2)

"People who followed a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet lost more weight than people on a low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet during a six-month comparison study at Duke University Medical Center. However, the researchers caution that people with medical conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure should not start the diet without close medical supervision." (Source)

"Last year, three research teams reported the results of their controlled studies comparing low-carb to traditional low-fat diets. The results show that over a six-month period, obese people lost more weight on a low-carb plan. The reason for the extra weight loss is unclear. " (Source)

By all means, I am not advocating Low-Carb diets... My own diet is 50-60% Carbs... I just stumbled across some very interesting information and thought I would share :)

Just thought I'd clear that up

Here's another study:

"Of 53 healthy obese female volunteers (mean body mass index, 33.6 ± 0.3 kg/m2), who were randomized to six months of either an ad libitum very low carbohydrate diet or a calorie-restricted diet with 30% of the calories as fat, 42 women (79%) completed the trial.

Both groups reduced caloric intake by comparable amounts at three and six months. Compared with the low-fat diet group, the low-carbohydrate diet group lost more weight (8.5 ± 1.0 vs. 3.9 ± 1.0 kg; P < .001) and more body fat (4.8 ± 0.67 vs. 2.0 ± 0.75 kg; P < .01)." (Source)

If you want, you can find more... Google "Low Carb More Effective" - It'll turn up a lot...

Regardless of how they shed pounds in the first place, big losers stayed that way by limiting fat rather than carbohydrates, according to new research that could add fuel to the backlash against low-carb diets.Dieters already have been turning away from Atkins-style plans as a long-term weight-control strategy, and the new study gives them more reason: Low-fat plans seem to work better at keeping weight off.

?People who started eating more fat ... regained the most weight over time,? said Suzanne Phelan, a Brown Medical School psychologist who presented results of the study Monday at a meeting of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity.

It's an interesting study.  I don't find it hard to believe that eating different things effects your body differently. 

But the fact remains that they all lost weight, the pounds in difference weren't crazy, and could be explained by many different things.  Weightloss didn't completely stall for either group because of what they ate.
 

I think all of these studies, regardless of whether low-fat or low-carb comes out the winner, prove 2 points:

1) If you are on a program that allows you to eat foods that you enjoy, you will be successful.

2) If you continue on the maintenance portion of the program after you've reached goal weight, you will be successful.

The "trick" or "secret" is to find a program that allows you a variety of foods that you love and to stick with it -- both through the weight loss and through the maintenance.

Too many people tell themselves, I only have to do this for 2 weeks, or for 6 months, or until I lose X number of pounds, and then I can go back to eating normal.  You have to engage a program that permanently changes your eating habits. 

That's why the very first thing you should look at when you consider a program is its maintenance -- can you live the rest of your life like that?  If you can't, this is not the program for you.

I may not be losing weight as fast as some, but I have a very big advantage -- I am already living my maintenance plan.  I am already eating the number of calories that it will take to maintain me at my goal weight.  I know I can succeed on my maintenance, because I'm already doing it.

I agree with hybrids subject line - a calorie is not just a calorie. What you eat does matter. That article re-inforced that notion for me, but not in the way it intended:

"Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils."

I think that quote is quite telling; the 'low-carb' diet as most people conceive it is not the diet these folks were following. They were partaking of a very healthy eating plan that is in fact rich in healthy fats and low in unhealthy fats.

The article also didn't say what kinds of carbs the 'low-fat' group consumed. Was it all whole wheat pasta? The white stuff, that nutritionists often warn against in a healthy diet and is considered bad for the waistline? Those details could make all the difference in their weightloss.

But my point remains, for all us dieters in here - where you get your calories matters. For me, that has been borne out time and time again in my own diet plan regardless of my calorie intake.

---

On a side note about the article:

"Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts' surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least in the short run."

I'd like the reporter to expand upon that bold bit - did he/she choose that phrase because other studies (as CC users have suggested on this thread, actually) show that balanced diets help keep weight off better than low-carb diets, or maybe that the results of longer-running experiments suggest that low-card weightloss fizzles by comparision?

I'd just like to know why the statement needed to be qualified.

"There is a lot we can't account for or explain in the world. We only know how to use 10% of our brain. We only understand 10% of the universe (or less). We don't even know why we're here. "

Not exactly the point of the post, but we actually use all of our brain.  The 10% of our brain is a myth.

Just goes to show you how gullible I am...

For the longest time, I also believed our blood was really blue when it was inside our body and only turned red when it interacted with oxygen lol

well, isn't that what *blue veins* are all about ;)

lol That was my reasoning, too...

Who cares if they call them "Red Blood Cells"

Well, I have done them all, "diets" that is,  and guess what?  Every "diet" I did and stuck to diligently I lost weight.  So, in the end calories in/calories out.  Of course, the more ridicolous the deficit of calories, the more starving I was,  I lost weight faster.  The rub on that was I also gained it quicker and then more. 

Normal people, meaning those who don't have a food disorder,  eat all food groups!  Normal people sometimes eat too many  carbs but then go into a protien mode.  This is because people that don't have weight problems listen to what their body needs.  Sometimes, they splurge and eat whatever they want.  They know how to listen to their bodies.  Our bodies will tell us exactly what nutrients we need but those of us that have been on soo many diets have lost that innate ability. 

At the end of the day, if you lower your calorie consumption you will lose weight.  If you want to deprive yourself of a whole food group or intake a seriously limited amount of calories that is up to the individual.  I tried Atkins and couldn't do it longer than a week.  If I had to eat one more piece of cheese,  I was going to barf!  I love all food groups and in getting healed of this disorder I am finding how to do portions.  The minute I start limiting whole food groups, I get triggered into a binge.  So, I don't really care if this food is actually 6 calories to this food that might be 4.  I want to be healed of this disorder not just lose weight again on some fandangled program that is unsustainable. 

But if you study chemistry or biology, you will see that your body can rearrange the molecules of fat, protein, and carbs so that they're basically interchangable.  You can store protein as fat just as you can store carbs or fat as fat.  It is just a matter of how the molecules are arranged.  So I'd have to say I disagree with you...it's probably better to just eat a balanced diet.  Eating a high fat, low carb diet is bad for your heart anyway.  

I second what phantompoe wrote. I've been familiar with the Harvard study for awhile, and I had a similar reaction as hybrid when I first read about it. Dig around some more, and you'll see that what's coming out is that it's not about the amount of fat in your diet, but about the ratio of omega 3's to omega 6's. 

Since the 1980s when the low-fat trend took off, the ratio of 3's to 6's in the american diet has gone seriously out of whack. The reason for this is twofold: corn oil is cheap and it's put in everything, including low-fat processed food items. And low-fat dieters were cutting out not just saturated fats, but healthy omega 3's like nuts, fatty fish, olive oil.

Omega 3's are suspected to reduce inflammation processes in the body. Dr Oz says that they even help reduce visceral fat - the yucky stuff that collects around your middle. Weird to think a fat will reduce body fat, huh?

Otherwise, I just have a bone to pick with hybrid's post: he wrote about how protein we eat doesn't go into energy production, it goes into manufacture and repair of skin, blood, hair, etc. That's true BUT those body parts constitute lean mass so it shouldn't make a difference on the number on the scale.. it's still weight. Just not necessarily body fat weight.