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

#21

Post by neutronicus » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:17 PM UTC

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!

The trouble is that your digestive process isn't necessarily time-independent, so the same piece of food could represent different energy fluxes into your body if eaten at different times, and the calorie expenditure of your body isn't necessarily time-independent, so the same exercise (including just sitting around) could represent different energy fluxes out of your body if performed at different times.

Without actually measuring energy fluxes, "a kcal is a kcal" is meaningless.

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

#22

Post by jerf » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:17 PM UTC

dnlhoust wrote: post #11

crazygringo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I see this reaction all the time:

"A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If you want to lose weight, you just need to eat less."

"Well, no, your body can react differently to different types of calories. If some calories tend to induce hunger and others don't, then it matters quite a lot which calories you consume."

"Well, yeah, sure, everybody knows that."

Well, no, everybody may "know" it, but when you're not looking, they'll slip "a calorie is a calorie" right back in.

This matters. Either eating certain foods induces more calories to be consumed, in which case the key to dieting is to eat certain foods and not eat others and decades of consensus and advice are irredeemably, irretrievably wrong, or a calorie is a calorie and these sorts of studies are irredeemably, irretrievably wrong (as this is hardly the first one to suggest lower carb or lower GI diets are superior). Some people seem very comfortable just sort of sliding into the "sure, calorie type matters" whenever it is argued, but somehow not being willing to follow the logic that if calorie type matters, then certain further research and conclusions are called for that are sharply at odds with conventional wisdom, which has been very, very much that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight gain.

Conventional wisdom and decades of dieting advice have been deeply, profoundly, foundationally based on a calorie being a calorie being a calorie, and if that is not true, the conventional wisdom is deeply, profoundly, foundationally if you like, flawed. There's no two ways around this.

(Though I absolutely, positively guarantee that if it does turn out that calorie type matters that this move will be used to slowly but surely rewrite the last 50 years of dietary history such that the conventional wisdom was always right and never said anything about calorie types not mattering. But it won't be true.)

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

#23

Post by somesaba » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:19 PM UTC

Really? I thought this was known already...you needed to do research to discover this? Now I didn't read the article, but if they did research to discover to what extent the exact differences result in, then that's fine I guess...but judging from the title that's not the case.

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

#24

Post by neutronicus » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:19 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #5

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.

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…

People talking like you can perform a thermodynamic analysis of nutrition is definitely a pet peeve as a physicist.

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

#25

Post by mertd » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:25 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #18

mertd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

I meant eating less in terms of calories.

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

#26

Post by breadbox » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:25 PM UTC

tomrod wrote: post #8

Argh! The caption in this article makes a grammatical mistake that is a pet peeve of mine. I cringe every time I read or hear it! An example: "Not all the donuts are eaten." "All the donuts are not eaten." Assume some donuts have been eaten. Which is correct? As I understand English, the first is logically correct, but the second is typically used. I apologize now to all of you who have never noticed this before, as…

The assumption that "natural language grammars" and "logic" are even on speaking terms will only bring you frustration, as you rail against perfectly correct constructions while the world rightly ignores you.

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

#27

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

crazygringo wrote: post #5

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.

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…

Yes as and no. Fundamentally weight gain/loss really is a matter of calories in vs calories out; if you're burning more calories than you're consuming then you're gonna be losing weight. It's akin to saying that all you need to do to win at golf is to hit the ball really hard towards the hole -- true, but not necessarily good advice.

The reason sometimes we put too much emphasis on the basic-thermodynamics side of things is that we're busy fighting a war against dumb fad diets.

But once you acknowledge the basic calories in vs calories out principle, you can start thinking about what foods make it easiest to maintain a caloric deficit. Even the most 'traditional' of health authorities acknowledge that this is a factor, which is why they won't say "Hey, whatever, eat three slices of chocolate cake a day and nothing else". The first factor is making sure you get sufficient nutrition along with your calories, the second is making sure you feel full while maintaining a caloric deficit. There's a growing acknowledgement that low-carb diets can help with both of these.

This study suggests a third factor: that eating a low-carb diet can actually boost your base metabolic rate. How? Not sure. It would be interesting to see whether it gets replicated in a larger scale study.

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

#28

Post by dgottlieb » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:29 PM UTC

kyberias wrote: post #12

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.

13 men and 8 women for 21 total people. The article also mentioned on multiple occasions the small sample size.

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

#29

Post by kyberias » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:32 PM UTC

travisp wrote: post #20

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.

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,…

Got it. I've heard that theory before but never have I seen any substantial evidence. I accept that the food I eat might have some effect on my "hunger" and "energy level". Which in turn could make me eat more or exercise less. That doesn't really have anything to do with calories per se. Many other causes have the same effect, e.g. psychological or hormonal situations. However, the real argument seems to be that what one eats impacts one's "fat storage or metabolic rates". That's hard to believe. It would be interesting to see some hard evidence to support that claim. The present study tries to give some results, but I think the sample rate is insufficient. I've seen much evidence to the contrary.

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

#30

Post by scdc » Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 5:34 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.

But why do they eat too much? Two things to consider: higher fat meals can make you feel sated sooner, so you eat fewer calories. Also, there is evidence that carbohydrates trigger an insulin release which activates a hunger response.