"Biologically speaking, a calorie is certainly not a calorie." (Low-carb diets)

[James Keeton]

Well chock up some more points for Low-carb diets! Here's a pretty cool article that scientifically explores the benefits of low-carb diets for weight loss.

http://www.jissn.com/content/1/2/21


"It is increasingly clear that the idea that "a calorie is a calorie" is misleading. The calorie content may not be as predictive of fat loss as is reduced carbohydrate consumption."

[Brinn]

It's a generational thing with this forum, I've noticed. Years ago, the mantra was "no carbs after 6pm." Now it's "a calorie is a calorie." It may have been a gradual change but for me, it was quite an abrupt change because I took a long layoff from posting here (~3 years).

[Emma-Leigh]

Firstly => Anssi is well known as a bit of a 'low carb fanatic'. ;) So his work is somewhat bias/ tainted and I wouldn't throw all your eggs into his basket *just* yet.

Secondly => I want to make clear the fact that a 'calorie' is a unit of energy. Regardless of it's source - it is 'measure' that is a set unit. Like length or temperature. It doesn't change based on where it comes from.

Another example which can be used is Mass. Mass is mass - regardless of the subject. A kg of lead is a kg of lead, and a kg of feathers is a kg of feathers. And a kg is a kg is a kg. YES lead and feathers have different volume/ form/ malleability/ shape/ consistency and many other properties... but at the end of the day - they are both 'a kg' and when measured in that regard they are the same.

So - in the same way - a calorie from fat is a calorie from fat. And a calorie from carbs is a calorie from carbs. And a calorie from fat is the same as a calorie from carbs.

YES --> How that macronutrient / food source is digested, absorbed, and metabolise in the body will be different. YES it will be bound in a different way. YES the food it is derived from will have different nutrients. And YES the hormonal response it creates in an individual will be different (not only within a single person, but also different between people too)...

But at the end of the day - when you measure 1 calorie of fat against 1 calorie of carbs.... it is still 'a calorie'. ;)

Anyway - with that said --> Look here for similar discussion: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=115796351

[MarkGates]

Firstly => Anssi is well known as a bit of a 'low carb fanatic'. ;) So his work is somewhat bias/ tainted and I wouldn't throw all your eggs into his basket *just* yet.

Secondly => I want to make clear the fact that a 'calorie' is a unit of energy. Regardless of it's source - it is 'measure' that is a set unit. Like length or temperature. It doesn't change based on where it comes from.

Another example which can be used is Mass. Mass is mass - regardless of the subject. A kg of lead is a kg of lead, and a kg of feathers is a kg of feathers. And a kg is a kg is a kg. YES lead and feathers have different volume/ form/ malleability/ shape/ consistency and many other properties... but at the end of the day - they are both 'a kg' and when measured in that regard they are the same.

So - in the same way - a calorie from fat is a calorie from fat. And a calorie from carbs is a calorie from carbs. And a calorie from fat is the same as a calorie from carbs.

YES --> How that macronutrient / food source is digested, absorbed, and metabolise in the body will be different. YES it will be bound in a different way. YES the food it is derived from will have different nutrients. And YES the hormonal response it creates in an individual will be different (not only within a single person, but also different between people too)...

But at the end of the day - when you measure 1 calorie of fat against 1 calorie of carbs.... it is still 'a calorie'. ;)

Anyway - with that said --> Look here for similar discussion: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=115796351


are you saying with reguards to fat loss you believe reguardless of the calorie consumed each will have identical effect on weightloss. i dont think you were but it wasnt clear from your post on your opinions.

[Emma-Leigh]

are you saying with reguards to fat loss you believe reguardless of the calorie consumed each will have identical effect on weightloss. i dont think you were but it wasnt clear from your post on your opinions.

I quote myself:
"How that macronutrient / food source is digested, absorbed, and metabolise in the body will be different. YES it will be bound in a different way. YES the food it is derived from will have different nutrients. And YES the hormonal response it creates in an individual will be different (not only within a single person, but also different between people too)... "
^
>>> A calorie of fat is still the same as a calorie of protein is still the same as a calorie from carbs.
However -->
They will be different in how they are digested, absorbed and metabolised.
They will be different in their hormone responses.
They will be different in their impact IN a person and BETWEEN persons <<<

Put another way -->
Their GROSS ingested energy is going to be the same - regardless of the macronutrient from where they came. ;) If you measure 1 calorie of carbs and 1 calorie of protein - they are still the same.

BUT --> through the process of digestion, absorption and metabolism they will create different responses in a person, and leave a different NET metabolisable energy for the body...

And the impact that difference will have on weight loss/ gain will be variable depending on things such as the degree of difference created via this process, as well as the genetic/ physiological factors of the individual(s) involved.

[MarkGates]

I quote myself:
"How that macronutrient / food source is digested, absorbed, and metabolise in the body will be different. YES it will be bound in a different way. YES the food it is derived from will have different nutrients. And YES the hormonal response it creates in an individual will be different (not only within a single person, but also different between people too)... "


apologies i completely missed that in the first post. i must of been distracted.

[IEatPowerRacks]

So I just read the entire article...

: "Interestingly, their results indicated that fat mass was significantly decreased (-3.4 kg) and lean body mass significantly increased (+1.1 kg) at week 6."

the f*ck? After reading that, I wouldn't completely take the word of the article. I don't even think the article even mentioned the subjects doing resistance training... losing more than 7 lbs of fat while gaining more than 2 lbs of muscle simultaneously in 6 weeks...