3 ms·

You've been vigorously defending your position all over this thread without relying on specific scientific evidence. Can you provide further reading to convince

You've been vigorously defending your position all over this thread without relying on specific scientific evidence. Can you provide further reading to convince us that the mantra "a calorie is a calorie" is useful to guide the modification of diet for weight loss and health? For what it's worth, here are two peer-reviewed articles that contradict that idea. The thermodynamic truism that "a calorie is a calorie" is true because it's a tautology, but misses the point almost entirely. EDIT: "a calorie is a calorie" is about as useful and relevant as saying "the key is to earn more than you spend" in the context of trying to save money, or raise yourself out of poverty. Technically absolutely true, but woefully unhelpful. --- 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639963/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639963/ "Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss." --- 2. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/5/899S/4690223 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/5/899S/4690223 "Over a million calories are consumed a year yet weight changes to only a small extent; there must be mechanisms that balance energy intake and expenditure. As obesity reflects only a small malfunctioning of these mechanisms, there is a need to understand the control of energy balance and how to prevent the regaining of weight after it has been lost. By itself, decreasing calorie intake will have a limited short-term influence."

Spivak 6y ago
You have your quotes switched. #1 agrees with me! Their entire theory is that different macro balances lead people to eat less because they're more satiating. Which is true but doesn't contradict the point that the actual thing that matters is CICO. Certain diets may make it easier or harder in terms of willpower but it doesn't change the underlying forces. #2 agrees with me too! That abstract is criminally misleading. > We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy. and > Of course, the increased energy expenditure associated with increased protein intake also does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, because the energy is conserved. It does, however, come close to the spirit of the argument that a calorie is not a calorie, because feeding diets that induce a difference in energy expenditure can introduce a difference in energy balance and thus a difference in weight loss. Of the macronutrients, only protein has been found to have this effect, but the magnitude of this effect is small and perhaps accounts for a 0.8-kg difference in weight loss between diet treatments over 12 wk If this is your argument then we're just arguing semantics. The only thing that matters is energy expenditure and total metabolized energy intake (which is CICO!). Like people already understand that our bodies metabolize foods differently (like the meme about celery being negative calories) but broadly following the standard nutrition info is a damn good proxy on average for metabolized energy. > is true because it's a tautology, but misses the point almost entirely. I think it's meant to drive home the point is the only thing that actually matters is total energy expenditure and calorie intake. If you're not losing weight you need to eat less and exercise more and vice versa if you want to gain weight. There's really nothing else to it. Every diet just provides some structure that makes the process easier since our bodies don't like it.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  > I think it's meant to drive home the point is the only thing that actually matters is total energy expenditure and calorie intake It's not though. That's not what the papers are saying. They're saying a calorie is a calorie. But calories turned into long term fat reserves are not equal to calories put in mouth - calories used in exercise. You can change the outcome of your diet by changing the composition of your diet while holding total calories the same.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    I feel like we're talking past each other. There are two truths here: * total energy intake and expenditure are the only things that really matter for weight loss * for some foods, there is a difference between the nutrition info listed calories and the metabolized calories Which implies what you're saying. If you play with your diet you can potentially keep the nutrition info listed calories constant while reducing your "real" energy intake. This feels like semantics because all you're really saying is that commonly understood nutrition info is inaccurate (which is true -- hell nutrition labels are allowed by the FDA to be off by 20%). In a perfect world with perfect information counting calories would be counting metabolized calories. But unless you're raising cattle on narrow diets the problem ranges from hard to impossible for real food. So the normal calorie counts that dieters use acts as a proxy and if done right, a rough upper bound.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  > I think it's meant to drive home the point is the only thing that actually matters is total energy expenditure and calorie intake. If you're not losing weight you need to eat less and exercise more and vice versa if you want to gain weight. There's really nothing else to it. This is the crux of what I think misses the point so entirely that you might not see it: "the point" is to figure out how to lose weight (and keep it off while being healthy). Beating on the dead horse of thermodynamic laws is utterly irrelevant to the question of which macronutrients have what effect on body fat and bodyweight. As I wrote in my edit, "a calorie is a calorie" is exactly as useful as dieting advice as "just spend less and earn more" is useful budgeting advice. The advice-giver can feel satisfied that they've emphasized a physical-mathematical truth, without realizing that they haven't actually done anything to help.

Spivak 6y ago

You have your quotes switched. #1 agrees with me! Their entire theory is that different macro balances lead people to eat less because they're more satiating. Which is true but doesn't contradict the point that the actual thing that matters is CICO. Certain diets may make it easier or harder in terms of willpower but it doesn't change the underlying forces. #2 agrees with me too! That abstract is criminally misleading. > We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy. and > Of course, the increased energy expenditure associated with increased protein intake also does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, because the energy is conserved. It does, however, come close to the spirit of the argument that a calorie is not a calorie, because feeding diets that induce a difference in energy expenditure can introduce a difference in energy balance and thus a difference in weight loss. Of the macronutrients, only protein has been found to have this effect, but the magnitude of this effect is small and perhaps accounts for a 0.8-kg difference in weight loss between diet treatments over 12 wk If this is your argument then we're just arguing semantics. The only thing that matters is energy expenditure and total metabolized energy intake (which is CICO!). Like people already understand that our bodies metabolize foods differently (like the meme about celery being negative calories) but broadly following the standard nutrition info is a damn good proxy on average for metabolized energy. > is true because it's a tautology, but misses the point almost entirely. I think it's meant to drive home the point is the only thing that actually matters is total energy expenditure and calorie intake. If you're not losing weight you need to eat less and exercise more and vice versa if you want to gain weight. There's really nothing else to it. Every diet just provides some structure that makes the process easier since our bodies don't like it.

klmadfejno 6y ago
> I think it's meant to drive home the point is the only thing that actually matters is total energy expenditure and calorie intake It's not though. That's not what the papers are saying. They're saying a calorie is a calorie. But calories turned into long term fat reserves are not equal to calories put in mouth - calories used in exercise. You can change the outcome of your diet by changing the composition of your diet while holding total calories the same.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I feel like we're talking past each other. There are two truths here: * total energy intake and expenditure are the only things that really matter for weight loss * for some foods, there is a difference between the nutrition info listed calories and the metabolized calories Which implies what you're saying. If you play with your diet you can potentially keep the nutrition info listed calories constant while reducing your "real" energy intake. This feels like semantics because all you're really saying is that commonly understood nutrition info is inaccurate (which is true -- hell nutrition labels are allowed by the FDA to be off by 20%). In a perfect world with perfect information counting calories would be counting metabolized calories. But unless you're raising cattle on narrow diets the problem ranges from hard to impossible for real food. So the normal calorie counts that dieters use acts as a proxy and if done right, a rough upper bound.
EForEndeavour 6y ago
> I think it's meant to drive home the point is the only thing that actually matters is total energy expenditure and calorie intake. If you're not losing weight you need to eat less and exercise more and vice versa if you want to gain weight. There's really nothing else to it. This is the crux of what I think misses the point so entirely that you might not see it: "the point" is to figure out how to lose weight (and keep it off while being healthy). Beating on the dead horse of thermodynamic laws is utterly irrelevant to the question of which macronutrients have what effect on body fat and bodyweight. As I wrote in my edit, "a calorie is a calorie" is exactly as useful as dieting advice as "just spend less and earn more" is useful budgeting advice. The advice-giver can feel satisfied that they've emphasized a physical-mathematical truth, without realizing that they haven't actually done anything to help.