Calorie is a Calorie?

Nutrition
41

[quote]smh23 wrote:
People act like this “study” means that clean eating is only advantageous for its effect on general health. This is definitely not the case.

Of course a calorie is a calorie. A car is also a car. That being said, there is a big difference between my 1989 Volkswagen GTI and my neighbor’s brand new Corvette.

The human body tends to lose weight when in a caloric deficit and gain weight when in a caloric surplus. If a person reduces their daily caloric intake over an extended period of time, it would only be logical for them to lose a considerable amount of weight, regardless of where the remaining calories are coming from. That is just simple math.

The mistake is to conclude that, because a man lost weight while eating Twinkies, a calorie is a calorie–not in the literal sense (which is a meaningless tautology), but in the broader sense that the types and quality of food you eat do not matter when it comes to weight gain/loss.

If anyone believes this, then follow it out to its logical conclusion: two identical twins with the same starting body weight and composition begin the exact same training program. They both eat 2,500 calories a day, but one of them gets his calories exclusively from Sour Patch Kids and Reeses peanut Butter Cups while the other eats a balanced diet: oats, chicken, eggs, lean beef, EVOO, tuna, plenty of green veggies.

Who would look better after 3 months?[/quote]

If both of those diets had identical macronutrient content, then the two would look vert much the same, all other things held equal. Thats the point: “clean eating” is nothing more than an arbitrarily defined restriction that has little relevance to what ultimately masters most with wright loss and health: calorie balance and malcontent composition.

No one is arguing that 2,000 calories of reeses and 2,000 calories of chicken breast are identical, thats never been the point.

42

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The whole point of his experiment was the prove that portion control is the key to relieving this country of the obesity epidemic instead of a focus on low fat or low carb or X fad diet.

Most people dont give a shit how they look, they just dont want to be fat. Macronutrient ratios are irrelevant to the general population and was not even close to being a part of the point of the doctors experiment.

People are fat because they eat way too much. Not because they eat bread. [/quote]

NO NO NO. This is entirely incorrect. You obviously don’t know how to interpret research. You’ve got to get emotional about it first.

I haven’t been around much lately, good to see there are at least two sane people still posting here.

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
A calorie may be a calorie but the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients is the ultimate point.
[/quote]

No, calories are the ultimate point. Eat 2,000+ calories over you maintenance of grass fed beef, coconut milk, and whole eggs for 5 years and you will still be overweight and very likely to experience the same negative health consequences associated with being severely overweight. The point isn’t to help people be as healthy as possible while still being severely overweight. The point is to eliminate the surplus weight, which is the NUMBER ONE risk factor for those negative health consequences.

[/quote]

Yes, for weight loss in the short term. Who would live a healthy life on such diet though? Who cares about something you can’t sustain long term?

You can be at your ideal weight and be unhealthy. I know you know this, just making my point. [/quote]

You EET KLEEN folks keep adding new requirements. First it’s “not all calories are created equally from a weight loss standpoint”. Then after it is proven that they are, it’s “not all calories are created equally from a general health marker standpoint”. Then, after THAT assertion is disproven, it’s “not all calories are created equally from a satiety standpoint”.

What a bunch of unnecessary mental gymnastics for the sake of preserving your own confirmation bias.[/quote]

Calm down. Take a couple deep breaths. What I said was a caloric deficit will result in weight loss. Eat clean folks? Most on here eat clean with some splurges here and there and I’m one of them. I care how I look. It helps with my sales which directly effects my pockets. Not only is it cost effective, but I look and feel great.

My point is consuming garbage is pointless. If you want a caloric deficit do it. Why do you have to eat shit? You can’t keep it up very long. Losing weight is about getting healthier and looking better. How good you gonna feel eating twinkies every day?

Now, before you blow your plump lil lid take a minute before you attempt to make your point and get your eventual one up.

43

Saw a couple nice articles about the twinkie experiment this morning by obesity researchers and physicians that work with over weight patients. The basic gist is that calories count in weight loss, but there can be more to weight loss than calories in/ calories out.

“Is this the dumbest nutrition â??experimentâ?? ever performed?”

“The Twinkie Diet for Fat Loss”

44

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
People act like this “study” means that clean eating is only advantageous for its effect on general health. This is definitely not the case.

Of course a calorie is a calorie. A car is also a car. That being said, there is a big difference between my 1989 Volkswagen GTI and my neighbor’s brand new Corvette.

The human body tends to lose weight when in a caloric deficit and gain weight when in a caloric surplus. If a person reduces their daily caloric intake over an extended period of time, it would only be logical for them to lose a considerable amount of weight, regardless of where the remaining calories are coming from. That is just simple math.

The mistake is to conclude that, because a man lost weight while eating Twinkies, a calorie is a calorie–not in the literal sense (which is a meaningless tautology), but in the broader sense that the types and quality of food you eat do not matter when it comes to weight gain/loss.

If anyone believes this, then follow it out to its logical conclusion: two identical twins with the same starting body weight and composition begin the exact same training program. They both eat 2,500 calories a day, but one of them gets his calories exclusively from Sour Patch Kids and Reeses peanut Butter Cups while the other eats a balanced diet: oats, chicken, eggs, lean beef, EVOO, tuna, plenty of green veggies.

Who would look better after 3 months?[/quote]

If both of those diets had identical macronutrient content, then the two would look vert much the same, all other things held equal. Thats the point: “clean eating” is nothing more than an arbitrarily defined restriction that has little relevance to what ultimately masters most with wright loss and health: calorie balance and malcontent composition.

No one is arguing that 2,000 calories of reeses and 2,000 calories of chicken breast are identical, thats never been the point.
[/quote]

I am not suggesting that anyone has ever tried to argue that 2,000 calories of Reese’s are identical to 2,000 calories of chicken. I am using a method called reductio ad absurdum to show that the proposition that “a calorie is a calorie” logically leads to the absurd conclusion that an all-chocolate should be indistinguishable from a calorically-equivalent “clean” diet (from a physique standpoint).

I should probably add that this is obviously not news to anyone on T-Nation. However, so many people believe that the only thing that matters when it comes to body composition is calories in/calories-out that this argument bears repeating.

And you’re right that the real difference between a chocolate diet and a “clean” diet is macronutrient composition. To me, that’s what makes clean eating–getting the right macro ratios while keeping caloric intake around optimum levels, considering your specific goals. Which is more important? Who knows, but I would rather eat too many calories from chicken and eggs than just the right amount from jelly beans.

45

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
People act like this “study” means that clean eating is only advantageous for its effect on general health. This is definitely not the case.

Of course a calorie is a calorie. A car is also a car. That being said, there is a big difference between my 1989 Volkswagen GTI and my neighbor’s brand new Corvette.

The human body tends to lose weight when in a caloric deficit and gain weight when in a caloric surplus. If a person reduces their daily caloric intake over an extended period of time, it would only be logical for them to lose a considerable amount of weight, regardless of where the remaining calories are coming from. That is just simple math.

The mistake is to conclude that, because a man lost weight while eating Twinkies, a calorie is a calorie–not in the literal sense (which is a meaningless tautology), but in the broader sense that the types and quality of food you eat do not matter when it comes to weight gain/loss.

If anyone believes this, then follow it out to its logical conclusion: two identical twins with the same starting body weight and composition begin the exact same training program. They both eat 2,500 calories a day, but one of them gets his calories exclusively from Sour Patch Kids and Reeses peanut Butter Cups while the other eats a balanced diet: oats, chicken, eggs, lean beef, EVOO, tuna, plenty of green veggies.

Who would look better after 3 months?[/quote]

If both of those diets had identical macronutrient content, then the two would look vert much the same, all other things held equal. Thats the point: “clean eating” is nothing more than an arbitrarily defined restriction that has little relevance to what ultimately masters most with wright loss and health: calorie balance and malcontent composition.

No one is arguing that 2,000 calories of reeses and 2,000 calories of chicken breast are identical, thats never been the point.
[/quote]

I am not suggesting that anyone has ever tried to argue that 2,000 calories of Reese’s are identical to 2,000 calories of chicken. I am using a method called reductio ad absurdum to show that the proposition that “a calorie is a calorie” logically leads to the absurd conclusion that an all-chocolate should be indistinguishable from a calorically-equivalent “clean” diet (from a physique standpoint).

I should probably add that this is obviously not news to anyone on T-Nation. However, so many people believe that the only thing that matters when it comes to body composition is calories in/calories-out that this argument bears repeating.

And you’re right that the real difference between a chocolate diet and a “clean” diet is macronutrient composition. To me, that’s what makes clean eating–getting the right macro ratios while keeping caloric intake around optimum levels, considering your specific goals. Which is more important? Who knows, but I would rather eat too many calories from chicken and eggs than just the right amount from jelly beans.[/quote]

You completely disregarded what Stronghold said about macronutrient composition of a diet AND caloric amount.

And sorry to break it to you–a calorie is a calorie.

46

Look at what Strong said: “IF BOTH THOSE DIETS HAD EQUAL MACRONUTRIENT CONTENT!”

Your comparison of Reese’s and chicken is irrelevant because Reese’s and chicken (fatty or lean) will NEVER have the same macronutrient content because chicken provides ZERO carbs and Reese’s do!

47

“People act like this ‘study’ means that clean eating is only advantageous for its effect on general health. This is definitely not the case.”

Who the heck is acting like this, let alone on this board? Who said the diet is more advantageous compared to another diet of equal macronutrient composition or not? Did anyone say this? Is anyone acting like this?

48

And what the fuck is going on with all these STANDPOINTS?

49

Brick, a calorie is a calorie and I agree. Would you not argue that different foods would increase the fat loss or gain? Does the gi not matter in you opinion? Also, if one is deficient in a number of nutrients would that effect bodily functions?

I don’t know, but I would assume so. You’re the guy with the research and papers. Honestly, what do you believe? If anybody would know it would be you.

50

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Look at what Strong said: “IF BOTH THOSE DIETS HAD EQUAL MACRONUTRIENT CONTENT!”

Your comparison of Reese’s and chicken is irrelevant because Reese’s and chicken (fatty or lean) will NEVER have the same macronutrient content because chicken provides ZERO carbs and Reese’s do!

[/quote]

My comparison of chicken and Reese’s is not irrelevant. I completely agree with you and Strong that the two will “NEVER have the same macronutrient content because chicken provides ZERO carbs and Reese’s do.” That is the point–a calorie may be a calorie by definition, but some are better than others in practice (for instance in seeking better physique).

You yourself are saying that MACRONUTRIENT PROFILE MATTERS–which is to say, it matters where the calories come from. That is the opposite of the proposition that “a calorie is a calorie”.

The phrase “a calorie is a calorie” is not used literally–noone can argue that something is not itself. It is used by idiots in arguments about nutrition to insinuate that “all calories are created equal”. To ascribe importance to macronutrient profile is to contradict that statement.

51

any weight loss will lower LDL, I was reading a study on this a while back,

all this says to me is that if you cut out someting and limit yourself to eating only a couple options it will generally lead to weight loss, you only eat fruit…youl loose weight, only potato chips…youl loose weight…look at that subway guy Jared, dude lost a shit load of weight,

On a side note i saw Jared at the NYC Marathon last sunday, dude’s far from lean and a sh*tty runner…excuse my french.

Took him like 4 hours or something to run the race

52

^^^
What is with the leg warmers on the arms? Wouldn’t it be easier to just wear a long sleeve shirt? I guess than you can’t show off the pits.

53

hahaha, they are in fact made for your arms, “arm warmers/compresion sleves” when your running for such a long time and its cold out it helps the blood get to your arms, your legs are doing all the work and don’t have a problem getting enough blood.

But yeah I guess you can wear a long sleeve, I will go and tell the running comunnity ASAP

54

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
“People act like this ‘study’ means that clean eating is only advantageous for its effect on general health. This is definitely not the case.”

Who the heck is acting like this, let alone on this board? Who said the diet is more advantageous compared to another diet of equal macronutrient composition or not? Did anyone say this? Is anyone acting like this?

[/quote]

From a post above:

“You EET KLEEN folks keep adding new requirements. First it’s “not all calories are created equally from a weight loss standpoint”. Then after it is proven that they are…”

He is saying that all calories are created equally from a weight loss standpoint. He is saying that it has been PROVEN that ALL CALORIES ARE CREATED EQUALLY FROM A WEIGHT LOSS STANDPOINT. If ALL calories are created equally from a weight loss standpoint, the THE ONLY thing that matters is total number of calories. There is NO ROOM for the importance of macronutrient profile in dieting.

55

“ALL CALORIES ARE CREATED EQUALLY FROM A WEIGHT LOSS STANDPOINT.”

Correct. Why do people lose weight in a concentration camp? They’re starved. End of story.

56

Here’s the only professional (non-bro science) definition of the word.

Calorie: a unit of heat equal to the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree at one atmosphere pressure; used by nutritionists to characterize the energy-producing potential in food.

Say whatever else you want. We all know that macronutrient composition of the diet matters as well for ANY fitness or body comp goal.

Take care.

57

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
“ALL CALORIES ARE CREATED EQUALLY FROM A WEIGHT LOSS STANDPOINT.”

Correct. Why do people lose weight in a concentration camp? They’re starved. End of story. [/quote]

People being denied food and losing weight does not in any way prove your point.

If it is true that all calories are created equal from a weight loss standpoint, as you say, then your previous statement about a diet of chicken and a diet of chocolate having different weight-loss effects due to different macronutrient profiles was false.

To recap: I said that if you took two identical twins on a weightloss program and fed one of them all chocolate and the other a calorically-equivalent “clean” diet, the clean twin would look better after 3 months. A lot better.

You didn’t try to negate this claim, because that would be ridiculous. Instead you said that is because a chocolate diet and a clean diet have different macronutrient profiles–thus proving my point that macronutrient composition matters and that ALL CALORIES ARE THEREFORE NOT CREATED EQUALLY FROM A WEIGHT LOSS STANDPOINT.

But then you said that people lost weight in concentration camps–a claim which, though completely irrelevant, is undeniable. So I guess you won in the end.

58

“To recap: I said that if you took two identical twins on a weightloss program and fed one of them all chocolate and the other a calorically-equivalent “clean” diet, the clean twin would look better after 3 months. A lot better.”

Dumbass comparison again. Who in their right mind on here is going to say an all-chocolate diet is going to compare to a “clean diet”?

Not to mention that you might drop dead from eating only chocolate because there’s likelihood you’d get kwashiorkor - protein-energy malnutrition in spite of adequate caloric intake.

59

They are all the same from a “weight loss” standpoint. So we’re all still correct.

Maybe what you’re talking about is TYPE (muscle or fat) of weight lost.

I didn’t win. Mother nature wins. And she says when you’re in a fucking caloric deficit, you lose weight!

60

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Look at what Strong said: “IF BOTH THOSE DIETS HAD EQUAL MACRONUTRIENT CONTENT!”

Your comparison of Reese’s and chicken is irrelevant because Reese’s and chicken (fatty or lean) will NEVER have the same macronutrient content because chicken provides ZERO carbs and Reese’s do!

[/quote]

So you are saying a diet composed of oats, chicken, and EVOO is the same as a diet composed of the same total macros/calories but from sugar, collagen, and hydrogenated oils?