Is it just maths????

[orangegoblin]

...On the flip side he is your husband and you should listen to him.

LOL...Welcome to the 1950s!

And "moot" means that it ultimately doesn't matter.

[IronCharles]

And "moot" means that it ultimately doesn't matter.

Dang. I always thought "moot" was a button on the 'mote.

[acrawlingchaos]

If you could get the profiles to line up identically then the results at the end of the day would be the same. I understand the concept and your point.

Not strength training would result in a smaller fat person no matter what the diet. However, comparing the two individuals in the example the person with the healthier diet would eventually be leaner. I know you like to reference studies so if you have something that states otherwise please post it, I'd be interested to see if this has actually been researched.

I agree with you and think it's fair to say that better quality food (I define quality as nutrient dense), makes you ultimately "run" better. So maybe output would be improved in some manner. I also think that dependent on the training style, avoidance of sugar isn't healthy, as it CAN be the best nutrient for the job.

OP
If you consider an average diet time frame of 3-6 months at a time, there MAY be some difference between your two clones that diet at the two extreme ends of the spectrum (which few do). It would be hard to say if and how much of a difference there would be. I would imagine it to be statistically insignificant.

[azstrengthcoach]

Ok so I have been reading the nutrition thread with interest....I don't want to hijack it so thought i would start a new thread. I have this ongoing argument with my husband and I would like to settle it once for all. I fear I will get different viewpoints here too, but it would be interesting to know the facts...

So my question is, is a calorie just a calorie?

Simple scenario - 2 people - doppelgangers or twins or even the same person. Both have same amount of weight to lose (we are talking just weight here). Same starting point, same lifestyle ( for arguments sake lets say sedentary), no exercise. Same maintenance calories needed. No supplements.

They both go on a diet - 500kcal deficit per day, so 3500kcal a week, hopefully (scientifically at least according to common info) leading to a 1lb a week weight loss.

But one eats what is considered "clean" (and yes i know there is an argument there that's why i said "considered"), all organic grass fed high protein low carb fish nuts oils veg paleo primal or any other buzzwords that one wishes to use. But in a nutshell - 100% healthy stuff.

The other person sticks to same calories but they all come from what is considered "junk" so burgers, chips, pizzas, biscuits, processed food, fizzy drink, loads of sugar etc

My question is - do they still lose the same amount of weight?

My husband says no.

My head says yes - whatever happens their deficit is the same. Yeah the person eating healthily will sleep better, probably have nicer skin, be less grumpy and hungry as they are not up and down on sugar and have more energy. But I can't see how they will lose more weight than the person eating unhealthily - maths is maths, right? I had this guy who has been in sports science all his life try to explain this to me ( he agreed with husband) and it KINDA make sense but not really. Coz of the numbers. And as in the argument neither of those people work and they have the same metabolism I just cannot see how the person eating better will lose weight any faster - deficit is the same.

If anyone can settle this argument for me that would be rather cool - it makes my head hurt.

No they aren't all the same. For example an all sugar diet would cause different effects hormonally than an all fat diet. Many studies have now shown that even at equal caloric intake, different macro nutrient contents can cause different rates of fat and weight loss

[acrawlingchaos]

No they aren't all the same. For example an all sugar diet would cause different effects hormonally than an all fat diet. Many studies have now shown that even at equal caloric intake, different macro nutrient contents can cause different rates of fat and weight loss

And assuming the macro profiles of the "clean" vs. "dirty" diets were the same?

[MrNutrition89]

strong knowledge

[azstrengthcoach]

And assuming the macro profiles of the "clean" vs. "dirty" diets were the same?

That's probably unlikely unless you mean completely identical as far as type of carbs, fats, and proteins.

[acrawlingchaos]

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20120...study-suggests

sure nuff. classically trained dieticians have been taught otherwise for decades.

It took me a few minutes to find the actual study.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....154#qundefined

. Limited to 21 participants.
. Participants were live in patients that did not engage in strength training.
. Specialized feeding duration was only 4 weeks.
. They did not continue the baseline diet as a control.

The study is interesting.... nothing more.

partly why we have obesity running a muck.

Most of the problem is overfeeding.

500 cal of broccoli does not = 500 calories of your favorite fast food...never did, never will.

Sure, and 500 calories wheat bread does not equal 500 calories of bacon..... sooo ya.

[crupiea]

If you were to break everything down like in a lab then the real difference would not be that much.

All the foods listed will breakdown into carbs, protein and fats.

Say you eat chicken, rice, veggies. The other person eats a burger and fries.

Clearly he cant eat a double cheeseburger and giant fries because the calories would be way too many.

So knowing this his portion would be much smaller and by default it would be very close to what you are eating or at least in the ballpark.

So while you had a nice filling meal, he will only get a small mcd's burger and 1/2 a bag of small fries. Not much to eat and certainly not satisfying.

I am sure that if all the meals were laid out before your husband and he could pick which one he wanted and they were all the same calories, chances are he would opt for the bigger one and not the tiny burger.

Of course over the course of the day of you ate the tiny burger over and over then you would not getting the proper nutrients which help all sorts of other bodily functions.

Losing weight isnt just about starving, its about eating smart.

[azstrengthcoach]

Food is more than the sum of its part aka the macro nutrients. For example eating a high vegetable diet provides greater health benefits than an equal amount of vitamins.

[mslman71]

They aren't true calories (1 g H2O 1 degree celsius, or in this case 1 kg H2O). They've been adjusted (Atwater, Wilbur not Lee) from true bomb calorimetry measurements. Anyway, unless you're snorting nothing but high fructose corn syrup or mainlining lard for weeks on end I would sweat the differences between eating "clean" and, I guess, eating "dirty." All other things being equal a reasonable diet that favors carbs or protein or some other combo will be close enough to meeting the "a calorie a calorie" requirement.From an individual's standpoint, if you track from day to day and stick to a relatively consistent intake strategy the slight systematic error that you introduce will be nulled out when you calibrate to your rate of weight change (loss, gain, same).

[EjnarKolinkar]

but this argument is a simple question - will the weight loss be the same?

that's it - nothing to do with health, body composition etc etc

just a yes or no.

and if no, why not?

yes, you are right and your husband is wrong. But I just lost one point off my man card for saying that...

Weight loss will always be governed by the laws of thermodynamics: calories in vs. calories burned.

OP wins! Jed hopefully you make big bets? Perhaps you share some winnings?

[RobertD2]

The OP asks about "weight"

Weight isn't fat loss.

Imagine two people.

One eats a very high salt diet and retains a lot of water.

The other eats low sodium and holds less water.

Fat levels will be the same. Weight won't.

Other things will affect water retention.

Most junk food is high salt. So if the OP is asking about scale weight then the answer is no.

[Jedwab]

Lol ok ... A few things - I am not going to ' listen to my husband' ( he would die of shock ) and no it wasn't a bet , just a discussion we have been having for some time.

It seems however that it's pretty complicated? Someone just said I asked about weightloss - which is correct, in my argument that is the only thing we are debating . Not body composition , fat levels , nothing like that . We are talking about putting two of the same person into a sedentary lifestyle and them eating in a 500 calorie deficit, say for 6-12 weeks. There are absolutely no differences between the amount of calories exerted. Only difference is WHAT they are eating. Does one lose more weight than the other?

I am guessing that unless I develop special powers and get a doppelgänger to do a real life test, it's unlikely that ill ever find out!

I still think I'm right though

Thanks for all the replies - I'm on my phone right now , but will try and digest properly later when I'm back at my comp

[PrimeBeef]

It took me a few minutes to find the actual study.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....154#qundefined

. Limited to 21 participants.
. Participants were live in patients that did not engage in strength training.
. Specialized feeding duration was only 4 weeks.
. They did not continue the baseline diet as a control.

The study is interesting.... nothing more.

Most of the problem is overfeeding.

Sure, and 500 calories wheat bread does not equal 500 calories of bacon..... sooo ya.

Not sure I get your point, but glad you found the study interesting despite the flaws you so adeptly pointed out in the published study. Metabolic effect, glycemic index, insulin release, and starting body composition are all part of the equation. Modern diet filled with wheat, sugar, domesticated animals with skewed fatty acid profiles are also reasons for the obesity issue.

[BalhamBeast]

This Study may be of interest. Twin sisters undertook either a low carb/high fat or high carb/low fat diet. This page shows the results for cholesterol and bodyfat. The high carb twin gained weight and fat - the low carb twin lost weight and fat.

[KLMARB]

This Study may be of interest. Twin sisters undertook either a low carb/high fat or high carb/low fat diet. This page shows the results for cholesterol and bodyfat. The high carb twin gained weight and fat - the low carb twin lost weight and fat.

Excellent. The twins obviously had a fairly high degree of lipogenic adaptation. That's why the one that used low-carb (lipolytic, fat-based) nutrition had the positive results. It was due to "adapting out" of lipogenesis with the consequential drop in anorexigenic hormonal resistance (lipogenic) states. I'll reiterate this point one more time, in order to lose fat, you must "adapt out" of lipogenesis and reestablish a balanced anorexigenic/orexigenic hormonal secretion pattern. Once that occurs, fat loss is all about thermodynamics, as in calories in/out.

Now you understand how studies can be manipulated. If you want to "prove" that fat loss is simply thermodynamics, you simply select subjects without significant degrees of lipogenic adaptation. With simple caloric restriction, those subjects anorexigenic/orexigenic hormonal patterns quickly normalize, and fat loss DOES become merely thermodynamics. It's folks with the significant lipogenic adaptions (such as found in the overweight/obese) that have the hard time with a carb-based (lipogenic) cut, as the initial issue is "adapting out" of a lipogenic hormonal secretion pattern.

[MecGen]

Does one lose more weight than the other?

Are they eating those calories before going to bed?

notgongthere.jpg

[EjnarKolinkar]

This Study may be of interest. Twin sisters undertook either a low carb/high fat or high carb/low fat diet. This page shows the results for cholesterol and bodyfat. The high carb twin gained weight and fat - the low carb twin lost weight and fat.

"According to the evidence produced by our Weight, BIA Fat% and Body Measurement results, my body fat% has definitely increased and Jeanne’s has definitely decreased.

We were warned by lovely Linda, our Dexa Scan Specialist that measurements taken on the machine always contain a margin of error. In other words, if the scan shows 24% body fat it could well be in reality that it’s actually a few percentage points higher or lower.

Now, because Jeanne and I were relatively ‘slinky’ to start with, our measurements and their changes all fall within that margin of error which is why the results below show that Jeanne (impossibly) has gone up in her fat%."

http://www.jaquelineduncan.co.za/category/test-results/ TwinNoakes




When they started talking about the BIA, measurement, and weight being a definite sign that one twin lost more fat, and DEXA proved the opposite I LOL'ed hard. BIA > DEXA, really? The twins are so close in body composition and weight, in a short trial we are pushing the limits of +/- margin of error on any body composition testing.

Good stuff Balham I had not seen that project before thanks for sharing.

[induced_drag]

In!

I am of the camp that calories are calories. While there may truly be certain differences, when you look at the diet as a whole, these small differences become insignificant.

Much like Newtonian mechanics can perfectly predict the time a bowling ball will take to fall 10 stories, but taken down to its smallest detail, it is incorrect when you are using it to predict atom size particles. While not 100% correct, it more then works well enough to predict things in the "real" world.

I see this calorie issue in much the same way.

[PrimeBeef]

http://www.jacn.org/content/23/5/373.full

Another interesting reference on thermic effect of protein, high protein diet and effect on weight loss.

If protein has a 20-30% higher thermic effect (essentially burning of more energy to process), then how can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of fat (that has the lowest thermic effect) when looking at the net effect?

[mslman71]

http://www.jacn.org/content/23/5/373.full

Another interesting reference on thermic effect of protein, high protein diet and effect on weight loss.

If protein has a 20-30% higher thermic effect (essentially burning of more energy to process), then how can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of fat (that has the lowest thermic effect) when looking at the net effect?

Because a food calorie is not thermodynamically equivalent to a true calorie, or kilocalorie in this case. There is an adjustment factor from true to food depending on the type; carb, protein, fat.

[ironwill2008]

These 'clean vs dirty' threads always go the same route; ridiculous extremes posted as examples. Who eats only protein, or only carbs, (sugar being the obvious extreme example of carbs), or only fat?



They also usually devolve into people trying to measure a mile with a micrometer.

[Brackneyc]

These 'clean vs dirty' threads always go the same route; ridiculous extremes posted as examples. Who eats only protein, or only carbs, (sugar being the obvious extreme example of carbs), or only fat?



They also usually devolve into people trying to measure a mile with a micrometer.

The whole topic is crazy. Too many variables to give a specific answer (which OP seems to want). Eat a diet which is sustainable, monitor, adjust. Rocket science is easier.

[ironwill2008]

Eat a diet which is sustainable, monitor, adjust.

^^^^ THIS.



To those who think all the minor details brought out ITT make such a big difference for anyone other than a contest-prepper, good luck sticking to eating fish heads, brown rice and broccoli for 10 meals a day, every day.

The fitness and nutrition world is a breeding ground for obsessive-compulsive behavior. The irony is that many of the things people worry about have no impact on results either way, and therefore aren't worth an ounce of concern."--Alan Aragon

Carry on.

[ljimd]

good luck sticking to eating fish heads, brown rice and broccoli for 10 meals a day, every day.

Dang Bill, you just ruined my lunch with the fish head reference

[Brackneyc]

^^^^ THIS.



To those who think all the minor details brought out ITT make such a big difference for anyone other than a contest-prepper, good luck sticking to eating fish heads, brown rice and broccoli for 10 meals a day, every day.






















Carry on.

Alan Argon, Schmallon Schmargon. What does he know. One MUST eat fish heads, and they must be eaten 6 times per day, and never just before bed. If eaten before bed, the "fat fairy" comes in and shrinks all of your clothing.

[induced_drag]

Alan Argon, Schmallon Schmargon. What does he know. One MUST eat fish heads, and they must be eaten 6 times per day, and never just before bed. If eaten before bed, the "fat fairy" comes in and shrinks all of your clothing.

Dont forget how it gets easy for ectomorphs to gain weight as they get older as their metabolisms finally slow down.

[azstrengthcoach]

This Study may be of interest. Twin sisters undertook either a low carb/high fat or high carb/low fat diet. This page shows the results for cholesterol and bodyfat. The high carb twin gained weight and fat - the low carb twin lost weight and fat.

Bingo this is what I'm talking about

[azstrengthcoach]

Because a food calorie is not thermodynamically equivalent to a true calorie, or kilocalorie in this case. There is an adjustment factor from true to food depending on the type; carb, protein, fat.

Exactly so all calories aren't the same