Proving that this is a science not fully understood yet does not in any way shape or form prove your theory right.
I agree. It just suggests it is a possibility. Making the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, no ifs ands or buts" notion not definitely true in my opiion.
I am sorry if I was confusing - writing quick posts in between here and there when I could. And as I said earlier, I truly didn't mean for this to be a fight but really a give and take and learning. I know it escalated - I don't want that. I love this supportive community. I guess I get passionate because I believe there to be some amazing, and potentially helpful nutrition research coming out over the past few years, but I sort of feel like old dogma that isn't always that empirically supported keeps the knowledge from helping people. And one of those is the idea that all calories are the same for all people. I didn't convey what I was trying to say accurately, and certainly didn't help my cause. I'm sorry for that. At the heart of it, I'm pretty sure we are all agreeing more than we are disagreeing.
Actually what interested me in this study was the rise in cortisol levels in the very low carbohydrate group... and it's possible effects... Not only on maintaining weight loss, but also its other possible negative health effects...
Yes, I found that fascinating.... that extreme macronutrient combinations (or at least low carb) could potentially put your body in a constant state of stress! I suppose not surprising news, but still interesting to know.
... I am asserting that there may very well be (and there is some good evidence to suggest) physiological reasons that in some ways, a calorie is not a calorie and that the composition of calories CAN make a difference.
I realize that you are responding to John and apologies for popping in, but this whole thread confuses me.
Just to nitpick (sorry), to say that "in some ways a calorie is not a calorie and that the composition of calories can make a difference" doesn't make sense to me. How can a calorie not be a calorie but its composition make a difference? If it has a composition, it exists.
IMO a calorie is a calorie or why call it a calorie?
The composition of food can impact the way the food is metabolised in the body, IMO, but a calorie is a calorie.
***
Also in response to posts I read about having to create a calorie deficit. I agree. Weight has mostly to do with calorie deficit, in my opinion, even if the makeup of macronutrients eaten impacts the balance of that deficit.
***
In response to the discussion of this being one small study and points made that it is a peer reviewed study in JAMA.
There are probably other studies. This is not really news and science has been considering it, in my opinion, for a while.
Personally, I think I am doing better at losing weight since giving up wheat.
That is an uniformed study of one person researching her own experience.
It means nothing.
The thing is that since I have given up wheat, it is easier to control calories because I seem to binge less and because I have cut out wheat based bakery cake from my local supermarket.
My point is I have done better managing my weight because I can more easily create a calorie deficit as I have changed the composition of the majority of the calories I was eating.
One person in the study, me.
***
This is an interesting thread.
Last edited by Amarantha2; 03-27-2013 at 07:37 PM.
You're right - there would be no difference if movement and exercise were the same. If you Google up insulin resistance and what effect it has and you'll see that for insulin resistant people a meal rich in carbs will make them feel lethargic.
For the same reason insulin sensative people will do better on a carb rich diet. They'll expend more energy with the carbs and less without due to energy levels.
So here is a quick clarification and to touch on some comments you made. My understanding is that a calorie is defined as “the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree Kelvin.” And you absolutely need to burn more energy than you eat to lose weight. But as part of that equation - the type of calories you eat (meaning are they protein? glucose? fructose? fat?) may contribute to your body using more or less energy (through a variety of mechanisms - some of them being hormone release) - even in a resting state. So the composition of calories may change the output part of the Energy In/Energy Out part - so in that way, I guess I'm saying not all calories are actually equal (I haven't even touched on an earlier comment, that I agree with, that you also don't actually absorb all fiber calories so fiber calories are not equal to non-fiber calories in terms of what energy they add to the body).
The are a few reasons you could be losing weight from not eating wheat. It could simply be that you are eating less because you have less options, you aren't eating binge trigger foods, and possibly you feel better and are moving more. And I'm sure that's a HUGE part of it. But I would also suggest, that potentially part of the reason giving up wheat helps some with weight loss, is that for some reason, when you eat wheat, your body uses less energy and stores more fat - for example, this could be due to insulin response from the wheat spiking blood sugar, perhaps you were somewhat intolerant to wheat and had a cortisol response (which can cause your body to go into fat storage mode) among other potential explanations. I'm sure everyone will tell me these alternative suggestions are wrong and that you are just obviously eating less and that is the sole reason for your weight loss. I don't want to debate it anymore. I don't necessarily think I'm definitively right, I just think the literature says this is a possibility.
Anyway, I do think its interesting - and I think we are going to see a lot of fascinating research come out of the field of nutrition in the next ten years. And if anyone is interested in learning more, particularly about the physiological aspects of food and weight loss, including some information and research that challenges some of the standard traditional wisdom, two really good books I recommend are "Rethinking Thin" by Gina Koolata (NYTimes science writer) and "Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes. As a result of Taube's work, some private donors have founded the Nutrition Science Initiative that some of you may be interested in. http://nusi.org/
Anyway, I need to disengage from the heated debate portion of this conversation.
Taubes is not a good source of wisdom, in my opinion. As a PhD candidate - I am surprised you could read his book and not see the obvious lack of logic in his arguments. Also, in the interviews I've seen with him, he refuses to answer direct questions. Seriously ... dude is like a politician. Super smooth.
In a nutshell - here is what Taubes believes. His hypothesis says that eating refined carbohydrates regularly has cumulative effect that eventually leads to obesity. Overeating is a side effect of a defect in fat metabolism that is driven by over production of insulin and therefore harder to burn fat (and easier to store fat.) This leads to excessive hunger and/or lethargy. Rinse/repeat we're all fat.
Bottom line is he completely ignores the role that calories play in the equation. Instead he points to carbs and insulin as the problem.
Yes, low carb diets work. They just don't work for the reasons he says. He says low carb diets work because you fix the insulin problem and your body becomes a fat burning machine. Calories don't matter. (I'm paraphrasing)
If carbs were such a problem, how to explain the fruitarians following the 80/10/10 diet. They eat primarily fruit which is 100% sugar (carbs) plus fiber. They lose weight, and fast. Why? You can only eat so much fruit. Limit calories, lose weight. Magic!
I can promise you that as a cherry picker of the data, Taubes will never bring up this study, in which protein was matched and those consuming carbs expended more calories. (45 young healthy people, probably none heavily insulin resistant)
So while I appreiciate that Taubes has helped people understand that consuming fat is not the problem I find it exceedingly annoying that he buried one demon and raised up two more. The truth is much more boring and doesn't sell books.
What's the truth? Calories matter. You can't gain fat in a caloric deficit. You can't lose fat when you eat more calories than you burn off, even if you eat zero carbs.
/rant
Good source of wisdom for a PhD candidate? Spent $10 and download all of Alan Aragon's research review work.
JohnP - Believe it or not - nothing you said stirred me up except perhaps the insinuation that maybe I'm not good as a student or a potential PhD (its seriously the only one thing in my life I actually AM really good at).
Anyway, there are some flaws in TAubes arguments but generally I think he has a lot of good ideas. And I don't believe he ever says calories absolutely don't matter. If you overeat you will get fat. If you limit calories you will lose weight. The amount by which you have to limit calories to lose weight or to maintain, does depend on what you eat. That is my central take away from his work.
I guess we disagree on that. And I definitely never said calories don't matter. I simply said that all calories are not created equal - the nature of the calories can impact the "calories out" part of the calories in/calories out equation.
I will look into Alan Aragon. I like to read reviews on all sides. But generally, I like to go straight to the literature. I suggested Taubes and Kolatta to people interested who probably didn't want to go into PubMed and read academic article after academic article. I personally prefer to read the academic articles myself.
Mmmm.... the beer diet. Now that sounds delicious! Our motto can be "We may have fatty liver disease but at least we are thin!!" I think it iwll go over big in the hollywood circles.
Last edited by mandypandy2246; 03-27-2013 at 10:02 PM.
Anyway, there are some flaws in TAubes arguments but generally I think he has a lot of good ideas. And I don't believe he ever says calories absolutely don't matter. If you overeat you will get fat. If you limit calories you will lose weight. The amount by which you have to limit calories to lose weight or to maintain, does depend on what you eat. That is my central take away from his work.
Too bad Taubes doesn't say this. Otherwise I wouldn't have had to rant against him and his beliefs.
If you ask him if calories matter he won't answer that question. Instead he'll say that we've known for 30 years that counting calories doesn't work.
To clarify, I wasn't really debating about my wheat experience, was just using it as an talking point that I think one study doesn't mean a lot, but I do think it is interesting.
I think the truth in the wheat thing is that I am eating less since I've banned a huge source of binge causing food items from my diet, but every suggestion you made could also be true. Thanks.
I agree with your restatement of your understanding of what I said about calories.
I don't find this debate heated. I think a number of people expressed their thoughts and that seems good. Seems friendly to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandypandy2246
So here is a quick clarification and to touch on some comments you made. My understanding is that a calorie is defined as “the amount of energy required to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree Kelvin.” And you absolutely need to burn more energy than you eat to lose weight. But as part of that equation - the type of calories you eat (meaning are they protein? glucose? fructose? fat?) may contribute to your body using more or less energy (through a variety of mechanisms - some of them being hormone release) - even in a resting state. So the composition of calories may change the output part of the Energy In/Energy Out part - so in that way, I guess I'm saying not all calories are actually equal (I haven't even touched on an earlier comment, that I agree with, that you also don't actually absorb all fiber calories so fiber calories are not equal to non-fiber calories in terms of what energy they add to the body).
The are a few reasons you could be losing weight from not eating wheat. It could simply be that you are eating less because you have less options, you aren't eating binge trigger foods, and possibly you feel better and are moving more. And I'm sure that's a HUGE part of it. But I would also suggest, that potentially part of the reason giving up wheat helps some with weight loss, is that for some reason, when you eat wheat, your body uses less energy and stores more fat - for example, this could be due to insulin response from the wheat spiking blood sugar, perhaps you were somewhat intolerant to wheat and had a cortisol response (which can cause your body to go into fat storage mode) among other potential explanations. I'm sure everyone will tell me these alternative suggestions are wrong and that you are just obviously eating less and that is the sole reason for your weight loss. I don't want to debate it anymore. I don't necessarily think I'm definitively right, I just think the literature says this is a possibility.
Anyway, I do think its interesting - and I think we are going to see a lot of fascinating research come out of the field of nutrition in the next ten years. And if anyone is interested in learning more, particularly about the physiological aspects of food and weight loss, including some information and research that challenges some of the standard traditional wisdom, two really good books I recommend are "Rethinking Thin" by Gina Koolata (NYTimes science writer) and "Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes. As a result of Taube's work, some private donors have founded the Nutrition Science Initiative that some of you may be interested in. http://nusi.org/
Anyway, I need to disengage from the heated debate portion of this conversation.
JohnP - Admittedly its been a while since I read "Why We Get Fat" by Taubes so I"ll have ot go back and look at it. Have you read his book? Or is your Taubes stuff based on his articles? My recollection is that he takes issue with the idea that all calories are created equal idea, not that amount of consumption doesn't matter. One of his assertions is, that what you eat causes you to eat more. Thats why he is big on more fat - the idea being you are satiated and eat less of other crap (plus your body needs fat). I'm not surprised he won't admit to calories mattering - I guess because he sees it as a somewhat meaningless unit of measurement based on what he thinks happens in the body physiological, but he certainly think overeating can cause weight gain. I think one of his points though, is that what you eat, can also cause you to be hungry and eat more. Like I said, its been a while since I specifically read Gary Taubes, so it is entirely possible I'm misrepresenting Taubes. I did really like his work when I read it, I'll have to reread it and see what I still think.
John (and others) - I'm curious, have you seen the movie Fathead by any chance? I've only seen clips. I'd be curious what you thought of it. I'd like to check it out sometime.
