Jump to content

A Calorie Is Still A Calorie, No Matter Where It Comes From


Recommended Posts

This article is short enough that I am quoting the whole thing.

 

Note.

 

A "calorie" (kilocalorie) is a measure of energy -- the amount of energy needed to increase temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.

 

Many people think they are eating "more" when they eat high bulk diets. Bulk being fiber and water combined. Such people are eating more bulk, but not more calories ( energy ). Some foods "wrap" the same amount of calories in "different sized boxes"( bulk). So people who are eating "more", bulk feel fuller but might actually be eating less calories ( energy ). Some good visual examples: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm

 

The article: ( from http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=945833&f=26 )

 

In Dieting, Magic Isn't a Substitute for Science

http://mobile.nytimes.com/h/Ucndih5oE6gOFUJ7vdXy02Y8agrylPtMTKAtA6tgZPIj6z8drLT0U2XihV4isB4TLwBDDuwoePip9CXrg0SZaOSB7YucGR-ptLqc1Vq9pMsMErQDC6DQHD9TZKa8TiAQJg**.cr

NO TRICKS Dr. Jules Hirsch has been researching obesity for nearly 60 years.

 

By GINA KOLATA

Published: July 10, 2012

 

Is a calorie really just a calorie? Do calories from a soda have the same effect on your waistline as an equivalent number from an apple or a piece of chicken?

 

For decades the question has percolated among researchers - not to mention dieters. It gained new momentum with a study published last month in The Journal of the American Medical Association suggesting that after losing weight, people on a high-fat, high-protein diet burned more calories than those eating more carbohydrates.

 

We asked Dr. Jules Hirsch, emeritus professor and emeritus physician in chief at Rockefeller University, who has been researching obesity for nearly 60 years, about the state of the research. Dr. Hirsch, who receives no money from pharmaceutical companies or the diet industry, wrote some of the classic papers describing why it is so hard to lose weight and why it usually comes back.

 

The JAMA study has gotten a lot of attention. Should people stay on diets that are high in fat and protein if they want to keep the weight off?

 

What they did in that study is they took 21 people and fed them a diet that made them lose about 10 to 20 percent of their weight. Then, after their weight had leveled off, they put the subjects on one of three different maintenance diets. One is very, very low in carbohydrates and high in fat, essentially the Atkins diet. Another is the opposite - high in carbohydrates, low in fat. The third is in between. Then they measured total energy expenditure - in calories burned - and resting energy expenditure.

 

They report that people on the Atkins diet were burning off more calories. Ergo, the diet is a good thing. Such low-carbohydrate diets usually give a more rapid initial weight loss than diets with the same amount of calories but with more carbohydrates. But when carbohydrate levels are low in a diet and fat content is high, people lose water. That can confuse attempts to measure energy output. The usual measurement is calories per unit of lean body mass - the part of the body that is not made up of fat. When water is lost, lean body mass goes down, and so calories per unit of lean body mass go up. It's just arithmetic. There is no hocus-pocus, no advantage to the dieters. Only water, no fat, has been lost.

 

The paper did not provide information to know how the calculations were done, but this is a likely explanation for the result.

 

So the whole thing might have been an illusion? All that happened was the people temporarily lost water on the high-protein diets?

 

Perhaps the most important illusion is the belief that a calorie is not a calorie but depends on how much carbohydrates a person eats. There is an inflexible law of physics - energy taken in must exactly equal the number of calories leaving the system when fat storage is unchanged. Calories leave the system when food is used to fuel the body. To lower fat content - reduce obesity - one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both. This is true whether calories come from pumpkins or peanuts or pâté de foie gras.

 

To believe otherwise is to believe we can find a really good perpetual motion machine to solve our energy problems. It won't work, and neither will changing the source of calories permit us to disobey the laws of science.

 

Did you ever ask whether people respond differently to diets of different compositions?

 

Dr. Rudolph Leibel, now an obesity researcher at Columbia University, and I took people who were of normal weight and had them live in the hospital, where we diddled with the number of calories we fed them so we could keep their weights absolutely constant, which is no easy thing. This was done with liquid diets of exactly known calorie content.

 

We kept the number of calories constant, always giving them the amount that should keep them at precisely the same weight. But we wildly changed the proportions of fats and carbohydrates. Some had practically no carbohydrates, and some had practically no fat.

 

What happened? Did people unexpectedly gain or lose weight when they had the same amount of calories but in a diet of a different composition?

 

No. There was zero difference between high-fat and low-fat diets.

 

Why is it so hard for people to lose weight?

 

What your body does is to sense the amount of energy it has available for emergencies and for daily use. The stored energy is the total amount of adipose tissue in your body. We now know that there are jillions of hormones that are always measuring the amount of fat you have. Your body guides you to eat more or less because of this sensing mechanism.

 

But if we have such a sensing mechanism, why are people fatter now than they used to be?

 

This wonderful sensing mechanism involves genetics and environmental factors, and it gets set early in life. It is not clear how much of the setting is done before birth and how much is done by food or other influences early in life. There are many possibilities, but we just don't know.

So for many people, something happened early in life to set their sensing mechanism to demand more fat on their bodies?

 

Yes.

 

What would you tell someone who wanted to lose weight?

 

I would have them eat a lower-calorie diet. They should eat whatever they normally eat, but eat less. You must carefully measure this. Eat as little as you can get away with, and try to exercise more.

 

There is no magic diet, or even a moderately preferred diet?

 

No. Some diets are better or worse for medical reasons, but not for weight control. People come up with new diets all the time - like, why not eat pistachios at midnight when the moon is full? We have gone through so many of these diet possibilities. And yet people are always coming up to me with another one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the Atkins Diet still not so popular? Because it FAILED. Humans one the diet began craving carbs and would FAIL. They'd lose some water weight by depleting the glycogen in their body, taking it into starvation mode, and walking around in ketosis. They also skyrocketed their chances of a myriad of diseases not the least being colon cancer and what Mr Atkins himself died of, heart disease.

 

And if a calorie is a calorie, how come for YEARS I was getting fat on high fat animal based junk food and protein shakes during "bulks", only to have to deplete calories to loose the fat, starving for food, and just sending my metabolism into a stand still and ready to lop the fat back on again?

 

While NOW, after going on 80/10/10 I lost 40 lbs, kept it off on a low calorie diet for a while, have slowly raised the calories up to ABOVE 3,000 (around 3,500 now), and have not gained a POUND of fat but lean muscle gains and strength are better than ever?

 

My blood pressure is awesome (was on meds on the junk food).

 

My blood sugar stays fine (was borderline diabetic).

 

All calories are NOT equal!!

 

Carbs = glycogen = ENERGY

 

Fat = FAT (only energy if STARVING AND DESPERATE or doing cardio)

 

Protein = amino ACIDS (gets bonded with structures in body OR PEED OUT)

 

Physiology plays a HUGE role in what we put into our bodies. All calories are NOT the SAME.

 

Think about that next time you eat something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What HorseSense said.

 

Honestly, when I read articles like the one posted, I just laugh out loud now. After everything I've learned over the years, all the injuries and illnesses and conditions I've been through, all the sports I've discovered, practiced, and mastered, and all the mind-body connections I've made about food, thoughts, chemical messages, and the power of the brain, it amuses me no end that people are still "counting calories." Of all the subtle inner symphonies the human body conducts on a daily basis, of all the whispers it sends to the brain asking for vitamins and minerals and vital supplies, it never once says, "And I want exactly 537 calories for lunch." Just another example of impatient people--especially allopathic doctors--wanting to stuff the entire body system into one tiny little box, slap a label and a price tag on it, and hope for their name in lights and textbooks. My god, I'm glad people like this guy don't have control of my freedom.

 

And weight "set points?" What a load, forgive the pun. There are a lot of success stories right here on VBB who would like to kick his ass, I'm sure. I'd pay to watch that.

 

Baby Herc

Edited by Baby Hercules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are saying is like saying a fossil fuel is a fossil fuel. So what?

 

All have energy and I'm sure you could measure out a piece of coal, some gasoline, and some oil which all can be converted to produce the same amount of energy.

 

Does that mean I should go put a piece of coal in my car and expect it to fire right up?

 

Please...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are saying is like saying a fossil fuel is a fossil fuel. So what?

 

All have energy and I'm sure you could measure out a piece of coal, some gasoline, and some oil which all can be converted to produce the same amount of energy.

 

Does that mean I should go put a piece of coal in my car and expect it to fire right up?

 

Please...

 

Nice. I was trying to come up with a halfway decent analogy like that but it's hard to brainstorm when you're laughing so hard. Since a calorie is just a calorie, why don't we all go on the Olive Oil Only Diet? It's calorie dense, so it would be inexpensive and simple to execute. We could shovel a couple spoonfuls of the stuff in at breakfast, lunch, and dinner and watch our bodies become healthy, balanced, and svelte overnight. We'd have to buy a LOT of toilet paper, though....

 

Baby Herc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are saying is like saying a fossil fuel is a fossil fuel.

 

It is more like he is saying "What weighs more a pound of feathers or a pound of steel ?"

 

300 calories from oatmeal and 300 calories from roasted peanuts are the same amount of energy.

 

The only difference to someone trying to lose fat is that the amount of peanuts that has 300 calories is only a handful. Choosing that for lunch will make them want to eat more food and take in more 300 calories, which may hurt their goal of weight loss.

 

However, if they are happy with only eating the amount of peanuts that has 300 calories they will not do any better....or any worse than the person eating 300 calories of oatmeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since a calorie is just a calorie, why don't we all go on the Olive Oil Only Diet? It's calorie dense, so it would be inexpensive and simple to execute. We could shovel a couple spoonfuls of the stuff in at breakfast, lunch, and dinner and watch our bodies become healthy, balanced, and svelte overnight. We'd have to buy a LOT of toilet paper, though....

That would be a terrible diet, but for reasons completely unrelated to the number of calories it contains. It would be void of nutrients and therefore terribly unhealthy.

 

The original article is quite clear that he's discussing the calories in a diet and how that relates to weight gain or loss only, and that diets are not equivalent as far as health promotion ("ome diets are better or worse for medical reasons"). I'm pretty sure he would not argue that all diets of equal calories would be equal as far as practicality, enjoyability, nutrition, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be a terrible diet, but for reasons completely unrelated to the number of calories it contains. It would be void of nutrients and therefore terribly unhealthy.

 

Find the nearest dictionary. Look up "sarcasm."

 

Baby Herc

That's needlessly rude of you.

 

I understand that it was sarcasm and that you don't actually mean that the Olive Oil Only Diet would be a good idea. I'm not a complete idiot. But sarcasm is used to make a point and I was addressing the point that I understood your sarcastic post to be making.

 

You said that as a calorie is calorie, why don't we go on the Olive Oil Only Diet. Of course I did not take this as a literal recommendation to consume nothing but olive oil, but as an attempt to show how stupid the idea that a calorie is just a calorie is. You were implying that if we accept that a calorie is a calorie, we would then have to accept that consuming nothing but olive oil would be an acceptable diet. Any reasonable person would agree it would be crazy to try to live off of olive oil. So if we reject the idea that an olive oil only diet is reasonable, we must reject the idea that a calorie is a calorie. That's how interpreted your post.

 

My point was that nothing in the article or about the idea that a calorie is a calorie specifically with regard to weight loss/gain/maintenance would suggest that it would be OK to consume nothing but olive oil. So the idea that an olive oil diet is ridiculous doesn't mean that anything in the original article is ridiculous.

 

In other words, you were saying (through sarcasm), "if A, then B", where B is something clearly false. Readers would realise B is false, and if they accept that A must lead to B would then have to conclude that A is also false. I'm saying that A does not actually lead to (or imply) B, so the fact that B is false has no bearing on the validity of A. B is false, but the reasons it is have nothing to do with A. (That is, in this case, olive oil only diet is not viable because olive oil has no nutrients, surely no one could bring themselves to drink olive oil every day, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article implies that because all calories are created equal, you can eat whatever you want, just count calories. If you're eating fat, just eat less of it, etc, etc. This is FALSE. Refined fat isn't NATURAL FOR HUMANS TO EAT. Are diseased, obese animals everywhere stressing over calories and this and that to eat? NO. Why? Because they're eating what is NATURAL, and eating until they're satisfied. No guilt trips. Just living life naturally.

 

This guy and his wife have helped to change my life. Because I REALLY see the big picture now, and I am experiencing this first hand I can be a personal witness to it. I just wish that years, and years and years ago I had known what this guy here is saying. Not trying to start anything with him and others here, as he promotes this forum all the time. But he can speak much better than me about the subject.

 

 

Again, why are we counting calories? Because of people who write articles like the one above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article implies that because all calories are created equal, you can eat whatever you want, just count calories.

 

I think you have most of the point right.

 

A completely correct interpretation might be

 

"Since a given amount of calories is the same amount of energy, no matter the source, it makes no difference, in terms of weight control, where the same amount of calories comes from. In terms of health and nutrition it will, but not weight control."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the important thing is that the issue being discussed in the original article is incredibly narrow. All he's saying is that if you can eat exactly the same number of calories, it doesn't really matter what those calories are made of, as far as gaining/losing/maintaining weight goes.

 

There are loads and loads of aspects of diet and eating that he's saying nothing at all about. Those including the following:

- what's healthy

- what's practical

- what tastes good

- what is satisfying to eat

- how easy or hard it is to eat a lot of calories of a given food

- and so on

 

All those things will affect what actually makes sense to eat. In real terms, all the above things, which he's not addressing at all, make a difference. For example, I like the Eat to Live diet. You don't need to count calories on that. Why? Because the recommended foods are not calorie dense, so it's hard to get a lot of calories in eating that food. So things like that--like calorie density and food bulk--make a difference to how much food you can eat and how satisfied you'll feel after eating them. This guy doesn't say that calorie density doesn't make a difference to how much you can eat. He simply does not address that at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But where the article is wrong is implying that this "weight control" can be long-lived and successful, esp in the form of calorie restriction.

 

Calorie restriction as a lifestyle is a form of anorexia, and it is taught by almost all the mainstream "experts" out there.

 

What is healthier, counting calories to make sure you don't get too much because you may eat too much of what your body shouldn't be processing to start with, in fear of gaining weight OR counting calories to make sure you are getting enough to do the things you want to do in life and at the same time not worrying about weight gain?

 

Do you see what I'm saying here? What I'm saying is you can't just separate the subject of calories from the subject of health when it comes to a living organism. It just doesn't work that way.

 

Biology isn't physics, as the article most certainly implied that it WAS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears to me that this article is largely a response to Atkins-style dieting. This guy is basically saying they are nonsense and that eating high fat/protein, low carb is not some magic way of eating that does something special to cause people to lose weight. I know there are loads of other things he's not addressing that are important for actually planning a diet. But they just aren't gone into here. That doesn't mean he never thinks about them.

 

I agree you can't ignore all the other stuff: if nothing else, what you actually eat will affect whether or not it's a way of eating you can stick to in the long term. And of course, the health implications of what you eat are very important. But again, those aren't topics of this particular article and we don't know what this guy thinks about them from reading it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But where the article is wrong is implying that this "weight control" can be long-lived and successful, esp in the form of calorie restriction.

 

I didn't interpret it like that because in the article he answers a question about why it is so hard for people to lose weight and keep it off.

 

Calorie restriction as a lifestyle is a form of anorexia,

 

No it is not. "Calorie restriction" means only calorie restriction. Deciding on the amount of calories you will consume. Deciding not to gorge yourself until you are sick is a form of calorie restriction.

 

What I'm saying is you can't just separate the subject of calories from the subject of health when it comes to a living organism. It just doesn't work that way.

 

Yes, it does. Health and weight control are two separate issues as matters of fact. That isn't the same thing as what people might WANT to do or what might make them feel good.

 

Biology isn't physics, as the article most certainly implied that it WAS.

 

Yes it is. Everything on alive on this planet has to obey the laws of physics. Not understanding exactly how that happens doesn't mean that biology isn't subject to it, just that we haven't figured out the whole picture yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone is right here.

 

1. Calorie restriction WILL cause weight loss IF it can be maintained by a dieter.

2. Calorie restriction may or may not be possible based on the mental state of the dieter.

 

 

Personally I suck at calorie restriction, but that is also basically the only option for bodybuilders and fitness models, so the math is solid, it's just the brain that takes motivating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Since a given amount of calories is the same amount of energy, no matter the source, it makes no difference, in terms of weight control, where the same amount of calories comes from. In terms of health and nutrition it will, but not weight control."

 

I understand the point you are making. There's just one little problem: it does make a difference where the calories come from because of the way nutrition affects health and thus weight control. When things aren't balanced--and hear me now: balance means very different things in different bodies--then the system does not work efficiently and many more things than just body fat percentages are affected.

 

If you don't have the right balance of nutrition for your particular body, then your body does it's best to compensate but it can only go so far. And its first priority isn't weight loss, it's survival. Survival of the brain, then survival of the organs, then survival of everything else. That's why something called starvation mode exists. When you cut nutrition too much for your unique system, the body shifts gears, stops burning fuel efficiently, and starts storing it up instead. And listen closely--starvation mode happens a lot more often than you think, and not just in the starving. It's a handy tool that the brain whips out and uses for lots of situations you may not even be aware of like, say, toxin build up.

 

Toxicity: This is your brain, this is your brain on Bob.

 

Let's say Bob is a moderately overweight person who has eaten a lot of crap in his lifetime, some of it containing very harmful toxins like formaldehyde, dioxins, PCBs, even alcohol. Back when he was gobbling it up, unbeknownst to him, his smart body cleverly pulled the toxins out of his food and locked them up in his fat cells before they could enter his bloodstream and then his vital organs and brain. As long as they sit in those fat cells, insulated and isolated, Bob's golden. He may have a few unpleasant symptoms, but he ain't gonna die. Now, let's say he's decided to take the plunge and drop the excess weight. He's read an article in the New York Times and thought to himself, "Gee, the New York Times has never published anything that turned out to be wrong," and decides to cut his nutritional intake simply by eating less food. He doesn't really pay attention to what he's eating because, hey, a calorie is a calorie, right? He just eats less of it. His body notices the deficiency and begins to tap those fat cells for energy but wait, all of a sudden there's a serious problem.

 

As Bob's fat cells release their contents, they release the toxins, too. Now, Bob's blood is poisoned. His thyroid begins to falter and he feels like he's dragging all day long, yet he can't seem to get to sleep at night. His liver suffers and he becomes irritable. His prostate takes a major hit and his ability to give Mrs. Bob that little girl she's always been wanting hits the skids. The health of all his cells in general dips in such a way that they cannot metabolize the nutrients they are receiving or repair themselves from damage when they need to. In a word, Bob starts to really feel like shit. He blames himself ("I'm just out of shape, it'll pass. I don't want to fail at this and look like a weenie.") and just pushes on through. But his brain has a priority higher than a smaller jeans size: it wants its body to live. It shuts down his fat burning apparatus to prevent any more poisons from marching up his bloodstream into its front yard. It throws the switch and sends him right into starvation mode even when he isn't starving. He is now exercising like he's supposed to, eating the right portions according to all the experts, but feeling worse every day and not only is he not losing weight, he's gaining it. He even has bizarre, irrational cravings for high fat food, which he also blames on himself. Thank you, brain, you did good.

 

OK, calorie counting, you can go now. Nutrition, take the stage. If Bob had done a little research, he would have realized that including foods high in the nutrients necessary to help flush out toxins would have saved him a lot of grief. Calories weren't really important at all. All Bob had to do was stop eating the crap, start eating the good stuff (like vegan stuff, which automatically contains the goodies necessary for toxin flush), and incorporate a mild exercise program that builds gradually into a killer exercise program. He would have naturally balanced his system, his now-efficient body would have consequently upped his metabolism as a nice bonus, he would have lost weight gradually and fairly effortlessly, the toxins would have floated right out of his body incrementally without him noticing them at all, and his brain would have been happy, no cravings. He could have accomplished all this without thinking about a single calorie, in fact he could have gorged himself on awesome food at every meal and felt pleasantly full. Smarter vegans do it every day.

 

Ready for the clincher? You are ALL Bob. You don't have to be significantly overweight for your body to hit the panic button when toxins enter your bloodstream during weight loss. In fact, it's those last five to ten pounds that seem so hard to lose that often hold the toxins. They could be toxins you've had sitting in your left buttcheek since junior high when you ate that apple with the pesticides in it, the body doesn't care one way or the other. People vary, though. Some can drop obscene amounts of weight in short periods of time and only seem to shock their system a little. Ironically, that's often not a sign of strength on their part; it's usually an indication that their chemical signals aren't working very efficiently and/or they have numbed themselves to the signs. Time will tell; the body always wins in the end. Some of us just like to work too hard. Most of us, though, are pretty aware of how we feel and what our system is asking for. Surprisingly, it's the highly sensitive types who are equipped to handle everything with the greatest ease. They are acutely aware of the signs around them and within them and are the least able to just cast a blind eye upon the obvious. They don't tolerate suffering well. You shouldn't, either.

 

Instead of responding to a bodily condition (like excess weight) by cutting back, retracting, or going without something (like calories), think about adding good stuff, replacing things with better things, and supplementing your life with more of what you actually need. You'll never starve again.

 

Baby Herc

Edited by Baby Hercules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is you can't just separate the subject of calories from the subject of health when it comes to a living organism. It just doesn't work that way.

 

Yes, it does. Health and weight control are two separate issues as matters of fact.

 

Seriously? So, you're saying that a person's weight and a person's health are 100% mutually exclusive? Are you kidding me?

 

Baby Herc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is you can't just separate the subject of calories from the subject of health when it comes to a living organism. It just doesn't work that way.

 

Yes, it does. Health and weight control are two separate issues as matters of fact.

 

Seriously? So, you're saying that a person's weight and a person's health are 100% mutually exclusive? Are you kidding me?

 

Baby Herc

 

You wrote it, I did not. At some point issues of weight control and health intersect, but they don't intersect in every situation.

 

A diet does not have to be healthy for a person to lose or maintain their weight on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like arguing with a brick wall. Something I stop doing once I realize it.

 

I might suggest you stop being rude first.

 

Have fun promoting diet "science" from chubby old doctors with obvious 40" waists.

 

So if someone doesn't have a slim waist they can't have superior knowledge to you in regards to human physiology, despite having degrees you don't and research experience that you don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if someone doesn't have a slim waist they can't have superior knowledge to you in regards to human physiology, despite having degrees you don't and research experience that you don't?

Everyone knows that knowledge is inversely proportional to waist measurement...

 

Welcome to the internet, where ad hominem reasoning trumps all arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...