Calorie is a Calorie?

Diet and Nutrition
61

[quote]waldo21212 wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Not saying that either. You’d run into problems like that too–kwashiorkor, nutrient deficiencies, and maybe coronary artery disease.

62

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
“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”?

Stonghold would/did. Since you’re saying it now maybe he’ll listen.

63

From a pure weight loss standpoint it doesn’t matter.

It’s a simple concept - less energy in than is going out, weight is lost.

Optimal body composition and health? That’s another story, but in regards to pure weight loss, that’s it.

64

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
From a pure weight loss standpoint it doesn’t matter.

It’s a simple concept - less energy in than is going out, weight is lost.

Optimal body composition and health? That’s another story, but in regards to pure weight loss, that’s it.[/quote]

Question: Do you think metabolism would change if one went from a clean 2,000 cal diet to a garbage 2,000 diet? I think clean eating would require more meals, get more nutrients, have a lower gi, and ultimately better results. Maybe the dirty diet could increase metabolism somehow? More cals in a shorter amount of time?

I don’t think we are taking everything into account. If we are talking a day or two maybe a week or two then I can see the cal is a cal mindset. Anything long term I just can’t see it. I also think the body would do it’s best to adapt so I have no idea.

The only thing I know is that I’m always right 95% of the time :>]

65

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
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![/quote]

And we arrive at common ground!

I consider type of weight lost to be a part of “from a weight-loss standpoint.” I also suspect that if those two hypothetical twins did their hypothetical experiment, the amount of weight they lost would not be exactly the same, whether it was from muscle or fat or whatever.

But, no need to make this a dick-measuring contest, we basically agree: undereating, no matter where the calories come from, will lead to weight loss. If you want to optimize, however, think about where they’re coming from.

66

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
From a pure weight loss standpoint it doesn’t matter.

It’s a simple concept - less energy in than is going out, weight is lost.

Optimal body composition and health? That’s another story, but in regards to pure weight loss, that’s it.[/quote]

/thread

67

[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 can’t violate a condition of my argument in the process of reducing it. In doing so, you create a strawman and cease to address the points made in my post. Your argument specifically violates the condition of macronutrient composition, so how does it prove anything?

You won’t find anyone (knowledgable) on this site who thinks that the ONLY thing that matters is calories in vs. calories out in regards to BODY COMPOSITION. However, what people are arguing is that, assuming equal caloric and macronutrient content, the source doesn’t really matter much. 50g of carbohydrate from oats or rice or quinoa aren’t going to have a drastically different affect on the body than 50g of carbohydrate from whole wheat bead. The dextrose in your post workout drink is not somehow magically different than the dextrose in the smarties at the gas station checkout.

Can you offer a universally definitive explanation for what constitutes “clean eating”? You can’t. That’s because it’s an arbitrarily defined term that everyone applies their own neuroses and food related hangups to.

Chocolate is rarely considered “clean”, despite being extremely good for you when consumed in moderation (hell, Waterbury even included it as a part of the diet plans in one of his recent books). People bicker back and forth as to whether artificial sweeteners are “clean”. Some think the calorie free artificial sweeteners are better and others think that the “natural” alternatives such as agave, stevia, etc are better for you. Each group would define “clean” differently with regards to sweeteners. To you “clean eating” is more about macronutrient content, whereas to othres (see the paleo crowd), it is entirely about the source of those macronutrients.

Now, you can keep on arguing with me about what is effectively the price of tea in China. However, I don’t think you’re going to be able to make a very solid case for yourself since no one can come to a concensus as to what “tea” is and where “China” is located when it comes to this subject.

68

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
“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”?

Stonghold would/did. Since you’re saying it now maybe he’ll listen.
[/quote]

Hey asshole, find that and quote it for me. I specifically said the opposite of that, several times.

Maybe you should spend less time “defending the paleo diet 'til the death!” and more time on basic skills like reading.

69

Good thread. Nothing to add here aside from agreement with “A calorie is a calorie.” Eat a mixed diet of natural and processed foods or whatever the hell you want. Calorie balance is the key…lift some weights if you want to hold onto more muscle.

Shit, this very site developed a diet to the opposite extreme called the “Velocity Diet” where all you do is drink protein powder and the same people who are talking about how awful the Twinkie diet was used to speak so highly of the V-Diet. FAIL. Check yourselves fools.

Gonna go eat pizza and ice cream nomnomnom

70

[quote]phatkins187 wrote:
Good thread. Nothing to add here aside from agreement with “A calorie is a calorie.” Eat a mixed diet of natural and processed foods or whatever the hell you want. Calorie balance is the key…lift some weights if you want to hold onto more muscle.

Shit, this very site developed a diet to the opposite extreme called the “Velocity Diet” where all you do is drink protein powder and the same people who are talking about how awful the Twinkie diet was used to speak so highly of the V-diet. FAIL. Check yourselves fools.

Gonna go eat pizza and ice cream nomnomnom[/quote]

LITERAL LOL!

71

[quote]phatkins187 wrote:
Good thread. Nothing to add here aside from agreement with “A calorie is a calorie.” Eat a mixed diet of natural and processed foods or whatever the hell you want. Calorie balance is the key…lift some weights if you want to hold onto more muscle.

Shit, this very site developed a diet to the opposite extreme called the “Velocity Diet” where all you do is drink protein powder and the same people who are talking about how awful the Twinkie diet was used to speak so highly of the V-Diet. FAIL. Check yourselves fools.

Gonna go eat pizza and ice cream nomnomnom[/quote]

Hey, come on now, protein powder is natural and was available to cavemen, so its acceptable.

72

[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]

this actually brings up a topic I’ve been meaning to discuss. Please check my new thread about it :wink:

73

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[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 can’t violate a condition of my argument in the process of reducing it. In doing so, you create a strawman and cease to address the points made in my post. Your argument specifically violates the condition of macronutrient composition, so how does it prove anything?

You won’t find anyone (knowledgable) on this site who thinks that the ONLY thing that matters is calories in vs. calories out in regards to BODY COMPOSITION. However, what people are arguing is that, assuming equal caloric and macronutrient content, the source doesn’t really matter much. 50g of carbohydrate from oats or rice or quinoa aren’t going to have a drastically different affect on the body than 50g of carbohydrate from whole wheat bead. The dextrose in your post workout drink is not somehow magically different than the dextrose in the smarties at the gas station checkout.

Can you offer a universally definitive explanation for what constitutes “clean eating”? You can’t. That’s because it’s an arbitrarily defined term that everyone applies their own neuroses and food related hangups to.

Chocolate is rarely considered “clean”, despite being extremely good for you when consumed in moderation (hell, Waterbury even included it as a part of the diet plans in one of his recent books). People bicker back and forth as to whether artificial sweeteners are “clean”. Some think the calorie free artificial sweeteners are better and others think that the “natural” alternatives such as agave, stevia, etc are better for you. Each group would define “clean” differently with regards to sweeteners. To you “clean eating” is more about macronutrient content, whereas to othres (see the paleo crowd), it is entirely about the source of those macronutrients.

Now, you can keep on arguing with me about what is effectively the price of tea in China. However, I don’t think you’re going to be able to make a very solid case for yourself since no one can come to a concensus as to what “tea” is and where “China” is located when it comes to this subject.[/quote]

You are right, you talked about macronutrient composition in your original post. But you were trying to say that, from a weight loss standpoint, an all chocolate diet would have a similar impact as an all chicken, eggs, and veggies one if they had the same macronutrient profile. Well guess what, they just fucking wouldn’t have the same macronutrient profile. And in the “a calorie is a calorie” debate, they don’t have to have the same macronutrient profile as long as they contain an exactly identical number of calories.

That was my point all along–the term “a calorie is a calorie” implies that macronutrient composition is meaningless, which is obviously bullshit. If we change it to “a calorie from fat is a calorie from fat, a calorie from carbohydrate is a calorie from carbohydrate, and a calorie from protein is a calorie from protein,” then it makes sense and is compatible with what you said above about 50g of quinoa having roughly the same effect on weight gain, maintenance, or lass as 50g of whole wheat bread.

If you accept this, then a calorie is NOT a calorie, even from a purely weight loss standpoint. It matters how many calories come from which macronutrients.

74

[quote]smh23 wrote:
It matters how many calories come from which macronutrients.[/quote]

Uh yeah, it DOES matter for muscle quality, body composition, and performance, as everyone is saying here all along.

But a calorie is still a calorie. See academically and professionally accepted definition I posted before.

Dude, your posts are good, but I think this thread is becoming more of a rhetoric competition rather than some discussion (or even debate) about nutrition.

75

I’m going to start a White Russian diet where all you drink is vanilla protein shake mixed with vodka.

76

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:

[quote]phatkins187 wrote:
Good thread. Nothing to add here aside from agreement with “A calorie is a calorie.” Eat a mixed diet of natural and processed foods or whatever the hell you want. Calorie balance is the key…lift some weights if you want to hold onto more muscle.

Shit, this very site developed a diet to the opposite extreme called the “Velocity Diet” where all you do is drink protein powder and the same people who are talking about how awful the Twinkie diet was used to speak so highly of the V-diet. FAIL. Check yourselves fools.

Gonna go eat pizza and ice cream nomnomnom[/quote]

LITERAL LOL![/quote]

Actually I can relate to this.
Recently due to a lot of stress and a hectic personal life I’ve been eating a sporadic crappy diet. I’m a stress eater and binge on pizza, ice cream, etc and all the other feel good foods when stressed out.
What I noticed was even when pigging out is that my appetite self regulates itself and at the end of the day I still wind up eating close to my normal caloric intake as when I ate clean.
I found it interesting that my body composition hasn’t drastically changed either.
My point is that I used to believe that a calorie was not a calorie when it came to wieght loss.
Nowadays I have to strongly agree with Brick and Stronghold.
Unless I’m trying to take my body composition to something more extreme like single digit body fat while maintaining the same amount or the most muscle possible for let’s say a vacation or just summer, it really doesn’t matter where the calories come from, junk or healthy food, I’ll stay in prety much the same condition as long as the calories are the same.
All I can say SMH is to try it for yourself and see what happens. I found out accidentally.

77

A calorie is not a calorie. A calorie is a Carol O’Conner on Extacy.

78

[quote]Fezzik wrote:
I’m going to start a White Russian diet where all you drink is vanilla protein shake mixed with vodka.[/quote]

Lebowski?

79

[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]

yes a calorie is a calorie but all i know is when i eat some junk food ( cake , ice cream , cheerios etc )to up my cals on a bulkin phase i feel like crap and it shows in my skin and in my eyes.

80

[quote]Dave1986 wrote:
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[/quote]

i bike ride in the mornin for my cardio i started wearing leg warmers on me arms coz its freezin when you start but when you warm up you can just pull em off n put them in your pocket another thing i do is put a news paper inside me t shirt in front of me stomach and chest then when im warm ill just pull it out n throw it in a bin.
but this has no connection with A CALORIE IS A CALORIE . WTF