6 ms·

Absolutely hyperbolic title. Sure, "A calorie cannot exceed a calorie" is more correct, but it's less punchy so nobody uses it. The point is that you can't get

Absolutely hyperbolic title. Sure, "A calorie cannot exceed a calorie" is more correct, but it's less punchy so nobody uses it. The point is that you can't get free energy from nowhere. It's very well illustrated by DNP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dinitrophenol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dinitrophenol

cammil 5y ago
That's not what they are saying.
bri3d 5y ago
To many, the point of "a calorie is a calorie" is not that you can't get free energy from nowhere, it's that that diet / food selection is meaningless as food containing one calorie of potential will always evolve to one calorie's worth of metabolic energy through some metabolic process or another - as in the abstract, that two "isocaloric" diets will always produce the same results. The idea of the paper is to dispel this notion.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  The point of the article is that this is not true. Chemically, a calorie is a calorie. But one calorie of fat is metabolically different from the equivalent caloric value of protein, because food is not processed by the body the same way that a calorie is measured.
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    It doesn't matter. If I eat nothing but 500 calories of Twinkies/cake/pure sugar (as measured on the label) every single day, I guarantee I will lose weight. Literally no amount of hand wringing will change that fact
    - CydeWeys 5y ago
      This is a strawman rebuttal. That's not remotely what the person you're replying to said.
    - KoftaBob 5y ago
      The debate around "A calorie is a calorie" relates to the whole "calories in vs calories out" concept for weight loss/gain. Examples like yours focus heavily on the "calories in", but forget to consider the "calories out" aspect. What I mean there is, when someone says that the body processes different macronutriets differently, a lot of that has to do with how it affects "calories out" If you eat 500 calories of a food that your body will only process a small amount of, and expel the other 450 calories as waste, that 450 is part of the "calories out". That's only a net "calories in" of 50. On the other hand, if you eat 500 calories of a food that your body chooses to process/store most of, that's 400 calories in, and only 100 calories out. The calories out part of the equation isn't just the energy you expend per day through movement/metabolic processes/etc, it's also the calories that are expelled as waste because the body didn't store that macronutrient.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        > If you eat 500 calories of a food that your body will only process a small amount of, and expel the other 450 calories as waste Does this much lack of absorption ever actually happen, though, outside of exceptional cases like if you get food poisoning?
        KoftaBob 5y ago
        I used an exaggerated ratio to drive the point home. To clarify, I'm not talking as much about absorption, more-so about things like how a macronutrient affects insulin sensitivity. Carbohydrates decrease insulin sensitivity more than protein and unsaturated fats would. Decreased insulin sensitivity means increased insulin resistance. "Having insulin resistance means that the walls of the cells within the body that need to take in glucose for energy, have a much-lowered sensitivity to insulin. This makes it harder for the cells to receive the necessary glucose through the cell wall. That glucose then remains in the bloodstream, resulting in high blood sugar levels, which the liver then has to manage. When this excess sugar reaches the liver, it is converted to fat. The fat cells leave the liver via the bloodstream and cause weight gain. If left unmanaged this can lead to obesity."
- dahfizz 5y ago
  This smells like a straw man. From the article: > it is important to understand exactly what it is meant by "a calorie is a calorie." The most common meaning is that is it impossible for two isocaloric diets to lead to different weight loss. I think that is hyperbolic - I've never heard that all isocaloric diets are guaranteed to result in the exact same weightloss. The point of "a calorie is a calorie" is that you need to reduce calories to lose weight. From the chart in the article, going from a 10% carb diet to a 50% carb diet (which is a huge change) only results in a effective caloric difference of ~130. It is _much_ simpler and more effective to just skip a 100 cal snack than it is to cut all carbs out of your diet.
  - treeman79 5y ago
    According to math yes. Reality is carbs increase hunger making dieting harder.
    - 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
      That's just in your head not something that is universally true for everyone. In my experience all large quantities of food increase hunger because you get your body used it. With carbs it's just easier to eat more in a smaller amount of space.
    - yufhgyjj 5y ago
      Keto, the Qanon of diets.
    - Retric 5y ago
      I lost weight on a high carb diet and I have lost weight on a low carb diet. Day 2 they felt different, but by day 200 the body adjusts and you get hungry either way. To simplify the body approximates the food in your diet, but also measures the amount of fat you have. A great many things trick the first, but the second doesn’t care what or when you eat. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039924/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039924/
  - jerf 5y ago
    This is a common motte & bailey argument. If you press in on "are all foods really the same?", you get "Oh, no, of course there are differences", but as soon as you're not pressing we end up right back at "you just have to cut your calories because all calories are exactly the same and it doesn't matter where they come from". Ironically, you demonstrate this in your last paragraph. If all calories are the same, yeah, just cut 100 out some other way. But if they have different effects on hormones, satiety, any number of other systems, then it may not be "simpler and more effective" to "just" drop 100 calories as a snack. You may need to actually change what you eat.
- CydeWeys 5y ago
  > it's that that diet / food selection is meaningless as food containing one calorie of potential will always evolve to one calorie's worth of metabolic energy through some metabolic process or another Maybe that's true evolutionarily over tens of millions of years, but it's definitely not true that cellulose calories are remotely equivalent to fat calories -- not unless you're already a ruminant, anyway. Similar issues may present themselves with other types of calories. Just because in theory we could evolve to optimally use all potential sources of energy in food doesn't mean that we actually have yet.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Also I believe there is some types of fats that aren't as easily digested. Might be some too that are not at all. Whole system is rather complicated process and don't exactly simplify to equalling same energy you get from burning or is stored in chemical bonds...
- EamonnMR 5y ago
  You would be surprised how many otherwise serious people have advanced to me the notion that you can get more than a calorie from a calorie of food, mostly in service of the notion that weight loss is impossible and you shouldn't try.
wrycoder 5y ago
The article refers to the usage in nutrition science: CICO - "calories in equal calories out". We are learning that this is not the whole truth.
- kleiba 5y ago
  The notion "a calorie is a calorie", however, refers only to the "CI" part.
- na85 5y ago
  The problem is it's very poorly understood, even by medical professionals. I had this very argument with an MD who was trying to tell me that if you operate at a sustained caloric deficit you'll eventually stop losing weight. On some level, CICO must be true. Famine is a thing. If you consume a very small but still nonzero amount of calories you will eventually die. So it's not correct to say that "CICO is BS" or anything similar. Whether CICO is an effective way of sustainable weight loss is another conversation.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    >I had this very argument with an MD who was trying to tell me that if you operate at a sustained caloric deficit you'll eventually stop losing weight. Depending on the definition of "sustained" (I assume the MD meant sustained absolute calories per day, not sustained calories below metabolism) it could be true, because as your body shrinks it reduces its metabolism partly because there is simply less of it.
    - na85 5y ago
      Well then you'd reach a caloric equilibrium and you'd no longer be at a sustained deficit.
  - amelius 5y ago
    It's like in medieval times when someone had a toothache, the tooth was pulled. Because a tooth that is not there can't cause pain. It's physically sound! But then someone said: yeah sure, except perhaps we can be smarter about it.
joshribakoff 5y ago
I didn’t have much time to read but I also concur the law of thermodynamics is not being violated, the only point that is valid here is that macronutrient composition can change your metabolism and thus BMR, if I understand their point (which is a bit conflated by the hyperbole)
handrous 5y ago
I still wanna know what my body was doing with the extra ~2,000 calories/day I was feeding it from ages 14-22, a period in which I put on only a little height and, by the last half, only gained maybe a pound or two per year. ... also I'd like to know how to get it to start doing that again. (yeah, yeah, I'm sure the answer is "take T and HGH, they're basically magic, aside from all the other health problems they give you")

cammil 5y ago

That's not what they are saying.

bri3d 5y ago

To many, the point of "a calorie is a calorie" is not that you can't get free energy from nowhere, it's that that diet / food selection is meaningless as food containing one calorie of potential will always evolve to one calorie's worth of metabolic energy through some metabolic process or another - as in the abstract, that two "isocaloric" diets will always produce the same results. The idea of the paper is to dispel this notion.

gamblor956 5y ago
The point of the article is that this is not true. Chemically, a calorie is a calorie. But one calorie of fat is metabolically different from the equivalent caloric value of protein, because food is not processed by the body the same way that a calorie is measured.
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  It doesn't matter. If I eat nothing but 500 calories of Twinkies/cake/pure sugar (as measured on the label) every single day, I guarantee I will lose weight. Literally no amount of hand wringing will change that fact
  - CydeWeys 5y ago
    This is a strawman rebuttal. That's not remotely what the person you're replying to said.
  - KoftaBob 5y ago
    The debate around "A calorie is a calorie" relates to the whole "calories in vs calories out" concept for weight loss/gain. Examples like yours focus heavily on the "calories in", but forget to consider the "calories out" aspect. What I mean there is, when someone says that the body processes different macronutriets differently, a lot of that has to do with how it affects "calories out" If you eat 500 calories of a food that your body will only process a small amount of, and expel the other 450 calories as waste, that 450 is part of the "calories out". That's only a net "calories in" of 50. On the other hand, if you eat 500 calories of a food that your body chooses to process/store most of, that's 400 calories in, and only 100 calories out. The calories out part of the equation isn't just the energy you expend per day through movement/metabolic processes/etc, it's also the calories that are expelled as waste because the body didn't store that macronutrient.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      > If you eat 500 calories of a food that your body will only process a small amount of, and expel the other 450 calories as waste Does this much lack of absorption ever actually happen, though, outside of exceptional cases like if you get food poisoning?
      - KoftaBob 5y ago
        I used an exaggerated ratio to drive the point home. To clarify, I'm not talking as much about absorption, more-so about things like how a macronutrient affects insulin sensitivity. Carbohydrates decrease insulin sensitivity more than protein and unsaturated fats would. Decreased insulin sensitivity means increased insulin resistance. "Having insulin resistance means that the walls of the cells within the body that need to take in glucose for energy, have a much-lowered sensitivity to insulin. This makes it harder for the cells to receive the necessary glucose through the cell wall. That glucose then remains in the bloodstream, resulting in high blood sugar levels, which the liver then has to manage. When this excess sugar reaches the liver, it is converted to fat. The fat cells leave the liver via the bloodstream and cause weight gain. If left unmanaged this can lead to obesity."
dahfizz 5y ago
This smells like a straw man. From the article: > it is important to understand exactly what it is meant by "a calorie is a calorie." The most common meaning is that is it impossible for two isocaloric diets to lead to different weight loss. I think that is hyperbolic - I've never heard that all isocaloric diets are guaranteed to result in the exact same weightloss. The point of "a calorie is a calorie" is that you need to reduce calories to lose weight. From the chart in the article, going from a 10% carb diet to a 50% carb diet (which is a huge change) only results in a effective caloric difference of ~130. It is _much_ simpler and more effective to just skip a 100 cal snack than it is to cut all carbs out of your diet.
- treeman79 5y ago
  According to math yes. Reality is carbs increase hunger making dieting harder.
  - 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
    That's just in your head not something that is universally true for everyone. In my experience all large quantities of food increase hunger because you get your body used it. With carbs it's just easier to eat more in a smaller amount of space.
  - yufhgyjj 5y ago
    Keto, the Qanon of diets.
  - Retric 5y ago
    I lost weight on a high carb diet and I have lost weight on a low carb diet. Day 2 they felt different, but by day 200 the body adjusts and you get hungry either way. To simplify the body approximates the food in your diet, but also measures the amount of fat you have. A great many things trick the first, but the second doesn’t care what or when you eat. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039924/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039924/
- jerf 5y ago
  This is a common motte & bailey argument. If you press in on "are all foods really the same?", you get "Oh, no, of course there are differences", but as soon as you're not pressing we end up right back at "you just have to cut your calories because all calories are exactly the same and it doesn't matter where they come from". Ironically, you demonstrate this in your last paragraph. If all calories are the same, yeah, just cut 100 out some other way. But if they have different effects on hormones, satiety, any number of other systems, then it may not be "simpler and more effective" to "just" drop 100 calories as a snack. You may need to actually change what you eat.
CydeWeys 5y ago
> it's that that diet / food selection is meaningless as food containing one calorie of potential will always evolve to one calorie's worth of metabolic energy through some metabolic process or another Maybe that's true evolutionarily over tens of millions of years, but it's definitely not true that cellulose calories are remotely equivalent to fat calories -- not unless you're already a ruminant, anyway. Similar issues may present themselves with other types of calories. Just because in theory we could evolve to optimally use all potential sources of energy in food doesn't mean that we actually have yet.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Also I believe there is some types of fats that aren't as easily digested. Might be some too that are not at all. Whole system is rather complicated process and don't exactly simplify to equalling same energy you get from burning or is stored in chemical bonds...
EamonnMR 5y ago
You would be surprised how many otherwise serious people have advanced to me the notion that you can get more than a calorie from a calorie of food, mostly in service of the notion that weight loss is impossible and you shouldn't try.

wrycoder 5y ago

The article refers to the usage in nutrition science: CICO - "calories in equal calories out". We are learning that this is not the whole truth.

kleiba 5y ago
The notion "a calorie is a calorie", however, refers only to the "CI" part.
na85 5y ago
The problem is it's very poorly understood, even by medical professionals. I had this very argument with an MD who was trying to tell me that if you operate at a sustained caloric deficit you'll eventually stop losing weight. On some level, CICO must be true. Famine is a thing. If you consume a very small but still nonzero amount of calories you will eventually die. So it's not correct to say that "CICO is BS" or anything similar. Whether CICO is an effective way of sustainable weight loss is another conversation.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  >I had this very argument with an MD who was trying to tell me that if you operate at a sustained caloric deficit you'll eventually stop losing weight. Depending on the definition of "sustained" (I assume the MD meant sustained absolute calories per day, not sustained calories below metabolism) it could be true, because as your body shrinks it reduces its metabolism partly because there is simply less of it.
  - na85 5y ago
    Well then you'd reach a caloric equilibrium and you'd no longer be at a sustained deficit.
- amelius 5y ago
  It's like in medieval times when someone had a toothache, the tooth was pulled. Because a tooth that is not there can't cause pain. It's physically sound! But then someone said: yeah sure, except perhaps we can be smarter about it.

joshribakoff 5y ago

I didn’t have much time to read but I also concur the law of thermodynamics is not being violated, the only point that is valid here is that macronutrient composition can change your metabolism and thus BMR, if I understand their point (which is a bit conflated by the hyperbole)

handrous 5y ago

I still wanna know what my body was doing with the extra ~2,000 calories/day I was feeding it from ages 14-22, a period in which I put on only a little height and, by the last half, only gained maybe a pound or two per year. ... also I'd like to know how to get it to start doing that again. (yeah, yeah, I'm sure the answer is "take T and HGH, they're basically magic, aside from all the other health problems they give you")