It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds
#2Is this news? I was under the impression that it was fairly common knowledge that all calories aren't created equally.
Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds
#3Is 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.
Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds
#4It 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!
Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds
#5Is 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 law, which tells us that energy is conserved, so if a system takes in more energy than it expends, the energy contained in the system has to increase. If that system happens to be our fat tissue, than the fat tissue accumulates fat. That’s the logic. So if we eat more than we expend, we get fatter and the logic turns this around to say that we get fat because we eat more than we expend. And so, overeating and sedentary behavior are the causes. This is the logic that leads virtually every government health agency and independent health organization (the AHA, the AMA, you name it) to have some variation of this World Health Organization statement on its website or in its promotional material: “The fundamental cause of obesity and overweight is an energy imbalance between calories consumed on one hand, and calories expended on the other hand.”
Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds
#6Summary:
"Subjects burned more than 300 additional calories on average when on the very low-carbohydrate dietcompared with the low-fat diet."
"Subjects burned 200 additional calories on the low glycemic index diet than on the low-fat diet."
"Ludwig also didn't recommend a very low-carb diet even though it offered the best metabolic edge. Some measurements suggested it could be risky for the heart, he said."
"The low-glycemic diet — which he has recommended for a long time — did not seem to have these problems, he said, making it the best bet."
"A low glycemic index diet is rich in whole grains, fruits and vegetables and is designed to prevent sharp spikes in blood sugar"
Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds
#7It 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:
Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds
#8Argh! 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 it may haunt you now for the rest of your lives.
Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds
#9Is 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…
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.
Re: It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds
#10It 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 to me) metabolic process to convert what I eat into energy that my body can use.
For me, an individuals metabolic rate may be roughly proportional to kcal intake, but it is not the same thing, and it is different for different food types, combinations, and for different people.
I liked the article - even though I am not a dietician, I do think there is something wrong about the Adkins diet.. not healthy.