It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds • Hacker News Board

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#11

Post by dnlhoust » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 4:53 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #7

dnlhoust wrote: post #4

It should be noted that a kcal /is/ still a kcal; The adaption your body takes after being given different levels of macronutrients doesn't change that if you eat more than you expend, you will put on weight. Also, I'm surprised that they didn't trial a 60% protein, 20% fat and 20% carb diet!

Actually, no. Here's an article that explains why this is not the case: http://garytaubes.com/2010/12/inanity-of-overeating/

While an interesting read, it feels like I just read some long winded analogy describing metabolism?

In the parent comment, I'm including bodily factors like metabolic reactions within "expend". The degree to which this makes a difference in overall expenditure is the un-quantifiable part; but adjusting your diet further to counter this lack of expenditure will still have the same effect. It still is a numbers game in my mind.

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#12

Post by kyberias » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 4:55 PM UTC

Didn't this study have a terribly small sample size? 13 adults were divided into 3 groups. That is 4 people in each group. There must be major individual differences how their bodies react to different diets during a four week period. I don't see how this is statistically significant.

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#13

Post by bitdiffusion » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 4:59 PM UTC

kyberias wrote: post #9

crazygringo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of people who insist that calories must be equal in terms of weight loss/gain, or else there would be violation of the laws of thermodynamics or something... To quote Gary Taubes, who tries to puncture this myth: The reason people believe we get fat because of overeating and sedentary behavior is because they believe the laws of thermodynamics somehow dictate this to be true. In particular the first l…

I don't understand how this quote from Taubes proves anything. If I stop eating, I will lose weight and eventually die. Also, if I eat more, I will gain weight. Thus calories must have SOMETHING to do with weight, right? I think Taubes is fighting a straw man here: I haven't heard anyone argue that eaten calories are stored in 1:1 ratio. But they have some causal relationship.

If you read the whole article, Taubes isn't saying that there is not a link between calorie intake and weight-gain - what he is saying is that it's not "causal" in any useful sense. Why exactly overweight people consume more calories is still a mystery and it's a gross oversimplification to discuss the law of thermodynamics when considering "why someone is overweight".

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#14

Post by mertd » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:02 PM UTC

martythemaniak wrote: post #3

jbwyme wrote: post #2

Is this news? I was under the impression that it was fairly common knowledge that all calories aren't created equally.

It is definitely not common knowledge amongst the general population. I believe low-carb diets (low carb, slow carb, paleo, etc) are well understood and praised amongst people with interest in nutrition and fitness, but it's still slowly making it's way into the general population.

> It is definitely not common knowledge amongst the general population.

For a good reason. First and foremost, general population just needs to eat less, a lot less. Once we get past that point, macro-nutrient composition can be the next level of diet optimization.

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#15

Post by dnlhoust » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:02 PM UTC

K2h wrote: post #10

dnlhoust wrote: post #4

It should be noted that a kcal /is/ still a kcal; The adaption your body takes after being given different levels of macronutrients doesn't change that if you eat more than you expend, you will put on weight. Also, I'm surprised that they didn't trial a 60% protein, 20% fat and 20% carb diet!

kcal may still be a kcal when verified in a bomb calorimeter - I believe for food they do it the same way everyone else does it: Put it in pure oxygen atmosphere, and light that baby on fire, measure the increase in temperature in a controlled environment, and the 'heat' produced is expressed in kcal. now, my body does not have an active flame, and I don't have a combustion engine in my stomach. I use a (mysterious t…

You are right that you have to adjust for metabolic rate; and while the content of your diet will have an effect on that rate (meaning getting an entirely accurate assessment of your expenditure is near impossible) the kcal value maintains;

I suppose it's my mentality that you adjust your eating habits based on your diet contents and its effect on metabolism, to match the kcal values, rather than viewing the kcal as an inconstant value.

Thank you, by the way. I enjoyed the opportunity to think though this

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#16

Post by seanalltogether » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:02 PM UTC

jbwyme wrote: post #2

Is this news? I was under the impression that it was fairly common knowledge that all calories aren't created equally.

Except that many have been trying to prove they are created equal. http://www.slashfood.com/2010/11/09/eat-twinkies-lose-weight...

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#17

Post by kyberias » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:08 PM UTC

bitdiffusion wrote: post #13

kyberias wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how this quote from Taubes proves anything. If I stop eating, I will lose weight and eventually die. Also, if I eat more, I will gain weight. Thus calories must have SOMETHING to do with weight, right? I think Taubes is fighting a straw man here: I haven't heard anyone argue that eaten calories are stored in 1:1 ratio. But they have some causal relationship.

If you read the whole article, Taubes isn't saying that there is not a link between calorie intake and weight-gain - what he is saying is that it's not "causal" in any useful sense. Why exactly overweight people consume more calories is still a mystery and it's a gross oversimplification to discuss the law of thermodynamics when considering "why someone is overweight".

I haven't heard anyone but Mr. Taubes "discussing the law of thermodynamics". For me, there is zero mystery why obese people are fat. They have eaten and continue eating more (calories) than other people. And they will get less obese if they eat less. What exactly is the mystery here?

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#18

Post by bad_user » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:10 PM UTC

mertd wrote: post #14

martythemaniak wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely not common knowledge amongst the general population. I believe low-carb diets (low carb, slow carb, paleo, etc) are well understood and praised amongst people with interest in nutrition and fitness, but it's still slowly making it's way into the general population.

> It is definitely not common knowledge amongst the general population. For a good reason. First and foremost, general population just needs to eat less, a lot less. Once we get past that point, macro-nutrient composition can be the next level of diet optimization.

I like meat and meat keeps me full for longer periods of time, while at the same time whenever I eat rice, or potatoes, or pasta (without any meat) I feel hunger in 2 hours tops.

I don't know if this is a property of high-fat versus high-carb diets, but either way it's a mistake to think in absolute terms.

I also disagree that we have a weight problem because "we eat too much". I lost more than 40 pounds by cutting all the sugars from my diet, while still eating plenty of food.

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#19

Post by ImprovedSilence » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:10 PM UTC

This is very much...not new news whatsoever. I thought it was pretty common knowledge you need different types of calories.

This piece also seems to be pretty marketing/weight loss heavy, as opposed to proper nutrition. (I think for an active person, a proper diet is around 40% calories from protein, 30% from both fat and carbs?) or do I have protein and carbs swapped...?

Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

#20

Post by travisp » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:14 PM UTC

kyberias wrote: post #9

crazygringo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of people who insist that calories must be equal in terms of weight loss/gain, or else there would be violation of the laws of thermodynamics or something... To quote Gary Taubes, who tries to puncture this myth: The reason people believe we get fat because of overeating and sedentary behavior is because they believe the laws of thermodynamics somehow dictate this to be true. In particular the first l…

I don't understand how this quote from Taubes proves anything. If I stop eating, I will lose weight and eventually die. Also, if I eat more, I will gain weight. Thus calories must have SOMETHING to do with weight, right? I think Taubes is fighting a straw man here: I haven't heard anyone argue that eaten calories are stored in 1:1 ratio. But they have some causal relationship.

Sure, if you stop eating you will lose some weight and die. But, you can die of starvation while obese. In animal studies, it is possible to reduce calories and the animals won't lose weight or to add a lot of extra calories and not become obese.

Calories have something to do with it because they are one part of the equation. Calories in does equal calories out. Calories In = Calories Stored + Calories Expended. But, the mistake is in thinking that the law of thermodynamics means that the type of calories in doesn't impact the ratio of calories stored/expended -- the variables are not independent. The content of the food you eat impacts: your hunger, your energy level, fat storage rates, and your metabolic rate, all of which mean that attempting to cut or add calories may not have the expected impact depending on what the food is.