4 ms·

There are also dozens of studies showing exactly the opposite (I've googled up just two): http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022207 http://www.nejm.org/

by ivanhoe 10y ago

There are also dozens of studies showing exactly the opposite (I've googled up just two): http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022207 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022207, http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637. It's pretty safe to assume that currently science is not overly conclusive about this subject. From the point of biochemistry that claim doesn't make much sense either, as calories measured in the food (which is done by measuring the heat when you burn it) are not the same calories that you end up having as ATPs in your blood stream. No digestion is 100% efficient and it's much more complex process than just the simple oxidation. Different foods and food combinations and different gut bacterias in each human create hundreds of variables in how efficient the conversion process is. We have variable food quality, variable food combinations interacting chemically, variable gut bacteria and digestion chemistry, variable metabolism for each person. Our body is a chemistry lab and making stuff repeatable and simple in the lab is usually very hard. Digestion itself also uses energy itself and how much depends on the type of the food. It also matters how often do you eat, eating all your calories all at once and than starving for the rest of the week is definitely not the same as having a balanced calorie intake. Presuming that it's all simple "just sum it all up from standardized tables" is overly simplistic look on a highly complicated chemical process that has many bio-feedbacks involved and is far from being a constant. Which of course doesn't mean that it's not a good enough simplification for the purpose of keeping the dieting simple enough for people who are not interested in the biochemistry, but that is just the same kind of approximation that all other technics do: "Follow these rules and you'll probably lose some weight".

ryeguy 10y ago
See, studies like these are the problem. They aren't calorie matched making them fully, completely invalid for debunking the point I'm trying to make. The first study says "[the low carb diet] involves limiting carbohydrate intake without restricting consumption of fat and protein", which means calories aren't controlled for at all. Only carbs are counted. The second study has the same problem, read the methodology section. Please, link me to "dozens of studies" that refute the link I provided above that: 1) have calories controlled in both groups 2) account for the non-permanent water weight in low carb diets and 3) find statistically significant differences in weight loss vs a regular calorie-restricted diet. You won't find a significant amount, if any. Your second argument is a really common one and I have never understood it. Agreeing that calorie management is all that is needed for weightloss DOES NOT imply that calories are equal. Calories being equal is not a requirement for counting calories. I understand the concept of TEF and that there are several other factors that can impact what the "effective" calorie amount of foods are. I understand that the human body is incredibly complex and there is no formula for accurately determining an individual's calories.' But none of these things realistically matter for counting calories as a tool of weight loss. You estimate your calorie intake using one of several googlable methods, then you adjust your intake over time to hit your desired weight loss rate. Any personal variances your body has or any dietary habits you have just get accounted for in the amount as you adjust it.
- great_kraken 10y ago
  The other problem is they do it wrong. One of the ones he linked limited to 20g per day, which is OK, but then increased the amount gradually to be "manageable." Uh, that's not true keto, that's Atkins half-assed keto, which is the exact book they used. The other one limited to 30g a day, which people over at /r/keto would consider too high, as would most low-carb dieters. Additionally, they both encourage (or, at best, don't prohibit) consumption of things which can be eaten in small amounts but still have a high GI, such as fruits and other things. It's not just about keeping the carb count below a certain number, it's about avoiding sources of glucose spikes as much as possible, too. They ignored that, and even flew in its face, which, in my opinion, invalidates the testing methodology.
IanCal 10y ago
> calories measured in the food (which is done by measuring the heat when you burn it) They're not measured like this any more, the macros are measured and an average figure for each is applied. It's called the Atwater method.

by ivanhoe 10y ago

ryeguy 10y ago

See, studies like these are the problem. They aren't calorie matched making them fully, completely invalid for debunking the point I'm trying to make. The first study says "[the low carb diet] involves limiting carbohydrate intake without restricting consumption of fat and protein", which means calories aren't controlled for at all. Only carbs are counted. The second study has the same problem, read the methodology section. Please, link me to "dozens of studies" that refute the link I provided above that: 1) have calories controlled in both groups 2) account for the non-permanent water weight in low carb diets and 3) find statistically significant differences in weight loss vs a regular calorie-restricted diet. You won't find a significant amount, if any. Your second argument is a really common one and I have never understood it. Agreeing that calorie management is all that is needed for weightloss DOES NOT imply that calories are equal. Calories being equal is not a requirement for counting calories. I understand the concept of TEF and that there are several other factors that can impact what the "effective" calorie amount of foods are. I understand that the human body is incredibly complex and there is no formula for accurately determining an individual's calories.' But none of these things realistically matter for counting calories as a tool of weight loss. You estimate your calorie intake using one of several googlable methods, then you adjust your intake over time to hit your desired weight loss rate. Any personal variances your body has or any dietary habits you have just get accounted for in the amount as you adjust it.

great_kraken 10y ago
The other problem is they do it wrong. One of the ones he linked limited to 20g per day, which is OK, but then increased the amount gradually to be "manageable." Uh, that's not true keto, that's Atkins half-assed keto, which is the exact book they used. The other one limited to 30g a day, which people over at /r/keto would consider too high, as would most low-carb dieters. Additionally, they both encourage (or, at best, don't prohibit) consumption of things which can be eaten in small amounts but still have a high GI, such as fruits and other things. It's not just about keeping the carb count below a certain number, it's about avoiding sources of glucose spikes as much as possible, too. They ignored that, and even flew in its face, which, in my opinion, invalidates the testing methodology.

IanCal 10y ago

> calories measured in the food (which is done by measuring the heat when you burn it) They're not measured like this any more, the macros are measured and an average figure for each is applied. It's called the Atwater method.