Is it just maths????

[Jedwab]

My head is spinning even more now ....so basically there is NO simple straight anwser?

BB thanks for the link ill have a good read later !

[induced_drag]

.

My head is spinning even more now ....so basically there is NO simple straight anwser?

BB thanks for the link ill have a good read later !

Yes there is..... For all practical purposes there is no difference.

But....with that said you could argue many issues. Just like time. We treat is as a constant, but in reality if you live on top of a mountain, you age slower then if you live at sea level. An airline pilot is 'behind' in time compared to the rest of us as he/she has spent so much time further away from a point of gravity....etc. This is all true...but the differences are so small it is not worth counting. Just like you dont need to move your watch forward after taking a flight....although technically it is now some degree behind.

KISS.....it works....dont try to make it too complex.

[mslman71]

Exactly so all calories aren't the same

No. That is the purpose of renormalization, so that they are [more or less] the same. The modification (atwater) takes into account uptake, efficiency of absorption, whatever.

[ironwill2008]

.


Yes there is..... For all practical purposes there is no difference.

But....with that said you could argue many issues. Just like time. We treat is as a constant, but in reality if you live on top of a mountain, you age slower then if you live at sea level. An airline pilot is 'behind' in time compared to the rest of us as he/she has spent so much time further away from a point of gravity....etc. This is all true...but the differences are so small it is not worth counting. Just like you dont need to move your watch forward after taking a flight....although technically it is now some degree behind.

KISS.....it works....dont try to make it too complex.

But it's more fun to try to split hairs! Let's drag out all the minute details that, taken entirely out of the context in which the OP was posted, might make some difference, but, when considered within the context of regular mixed meals, and for those not engaged in bodybuilding contest-prep, won't make one freaking bit of difference.

Let's use ridiculously extreme examples, such as an "all-sugar" diet, or someone eating only protein, or only fat (nevermind the fact that someone using such a 'diet' would be dead).

Let's pepper this thread with mention of the good old, "insulin spike," TEF, and yes, my all-time favorite, the Glycemic Index.

[IronCharles]

I am of the camp that calories are calories.

My head is spinning even more now ....so basically there is NO simple straight anwser?

Check out the link Alan Aragon provides here:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post665811891

First and foremost, not all foods are digested with identical efficiency. On average, high quality animal-source proteins are digested with roughly 90-95% efficiency with vegetable source proteins coming in lower than that (80-85%), fats digest with about 97% efficiency and carbs can be as low as 80% depending on fiber content.

Calories in does not equal calories out.

[induced_drag]

But it's more fun to try to split hairs! Let's drag out all the minute details that, taken entirely out of the context in which the OP was posted, might make some difference, but, when considered within the context of regular mixed meals, and for those not engaged in bodybuilding contest-prep, won't make one freaking bit of difference.

Let's use ridiculously extreme examples, such as an "all-sugar" diet, or someone eating only protein, or only fat (nevermind the fact that someone using such a 'diet' would be dead).

Let's pepper this thread with mention of the good old, "insulin spike," TEF, and yes, my all-time favorite, the Glycemic Index.

So so true. That is par for the course around here.

Last night in a debate about metabolic slow down with age, after I posted several studies showing it to be mostly related to age induced muscular loss and lower activity levels, I still had a guy arguing with me that it was real. Then told I amd the one who it trying to argue.

Get this...the guy is convinced that his metabolism slowed so much when he was 26 that in TWO months he gained 50 lbs. (srs). So he gains 50 lbs in two months....and then what?.... did his metabolism suddenly speed back up and he did not gain weight anymore? Why does he not weigh 8000 lbs now?....

This place just drives me nuts with these ignorant people and their ridiculous notions. I guess it is called a bell curve....but this place seems to attract a lot of people from the left side of it .....yes....tinfoil hats included.

[azstrengthcoach]

.


Yes there is..... For all practical purposes there is no difference.

But....with that said you could argue many issues. Just like time. We treat is as a constant, but in reality if you live on top of a mountain, you age slower then if you live at sea level. An airline pilot is 'behind' in time compared to the rest of us as he/she has spent so much time further away from a point of gravity....etc. This is all true...but the differences are so small it is not worth counting. Just like you dont need to move your watch forward after taking a flight....although technically it is now some degree behind.

KISS.....it works....dont try to make it too complex.

No they aren't all the same

[azstrengthcoach]

No. That is the purpose of renormalization, so that they are [more or less] the same. The modification (atwater) takes into account uptake, efficiency of absorption, whatever.

If they were all the same an isocaloric all carb diet would have the same effects as an all protien diet.

[ntrllftr]

.

For all practical purposes there is no difference.

No they aren't all the same

My brain hurts.

[IronCharles]

Last night in a debate about metabolic slow down with age, after I posted several studies showing it to be mostly related to age induced muscular loss and lower activity levels, I still had a guy arguing with me that it was real. Then told I amd the one who it trying to argue.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/i...art-losing-fat

Starting at about age 25, the average person’s metabolism declines between 5% and 10% per decade, Berardi says, which means that the typical North American loses between 20% and 40% of their metabolic power over the course of their adult life span.

Not speaking for the other guy you tried to discredit, but personally, I'm way more active now and far more muscular than I was when my metabolism was fast and I was a couch potato from 18 - 40. How you are going to assume it's because I'm more sedentary than I was is mind-boggling.


How anybody even believes a word you say is astounding to me.

[brandoncpt]

I didn't read the whole thread so I apologize if this has been talked about. Carbs go through glycolysis and then through the Krebs cycle. Protein has to be broken down before it can go through glycolysis and then the Krebs cycle. Fat is broken down into glycerol and fatty acids. The fatty acids are broken down further and proceed to the Krebs cycle, while glycerol goes to glycolysis and then the Krebs cycle. Each is handled differently and the body's hormone responses are different for each. I don't see how calories in could equal calories out. Personally when I eat 1800 calories a day I experience more weight loss when my macros are from mostly fats and protein.

[induced_drag]

http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/i...art-losing-fat



Not speaking for the other guy you tried to discredit, but personally, I'm way more active now and far more muscular than I was when my metabolism was fast and I was a couch potato from 18 - 40. How you are going to assume it's because I'm more sedentary than I was is mind-boggling.


How anybody even believes a word you say is astounding to me.

Charles

Dude....you are WAY too funny. You did not even flip to the second page of the link YOU posted as your argument.

Let me quote it for you.

The good news? A vastly slowed down metabolism isn’t inevitable, he says. It only occurs because North Americans tend to become far less physically active over the course of their lives. In fact, research shows that people who preserve their physical activity levels throughout their lifetime can expect to see only a 0.3% metabolic decline per decade. This is a huge difference, Berardi tells WebMD -- only a 1% to 2% total drop over a person’s lifetime.

So yes....over your lifetime....a 20-30 calorie difference..... You are right! BRB....eating .3 calories less daily day then I did a few years ago to account for my metabolic slow down.

[azstrengthcoach]

Calories are just part of the equation. The thermocouple effect of different macros, and the hormonal effects of those macros count too. Carbs, protien, fat, all effect things like leptin, insulin, thyroid hormones, MTor Glut 4 etc etc. Also genetics plays a big role, some people do well on low fat, some do well on high fat. Studies with twins have shown calories in calories out isn't true. A good example is growing children. Children eat more because they are growing, they don't grow because they are eating more, hormonal response is a big component. Also studies have shown people lose MORE weight on a higher calorie ketogenic diet than a lower calorie low fat diet.

[azstrengthcoach]

Charles

Dude....you are WAY too funny. You did not even flip to the second page of the link YOU posted as your argument.

Let me quote it for you.




So yes....over your lifetime....a 20-30 calorie difference..... You are right! BRB....eating .3 calories less this year a day then I did a few years ago to account for my metabolic slow down.

People have dramatic decreases in metabolism due to sarcopenia aka muscle loss and reduced activity. If he gained 50lbs in year at age 26 that's hormonal not due to a gradual slowing of metabolism.

[induced_drag]

People have dramatic decreases in metabolism due to sarcopenia aka muscle loss and reduced activity. If he gained 50lbs in year at age 26 that's hormonal not due to a gradual slowing of metabolism.

I made the same point that what people point out as slowing metabolism is mostly due to age related muscle loss and reduced activity....so yes.

On the other point....the guy seriously claims his slowing metabolism caused him to gain 50 lbs IN TWO months. Serious...TWO MONTHS. Yes....I know... not even worth laughing at.

[azstrengthcoach]

I made the same point that what people point out as slowing metabolism is mostly due to age related muscle loss and reduced activity....so yes.

On the other point....the guy seriously claims his slowing metabolism caused him to gain 50 lbs IN TWO months. Serious...TWO MONTHS. Yes....I know... not even worth laughing at.

The only way that wold be possible would be to literally do nothing but eat and sleep all day for two months and seriously over eat by 10-15k calories a day. That's clearly hormonal. Sadly even IF we stay very active the metabolism does slow down some with age.

[IronCharles]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2382714

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20191259

[azstrengthcoach]

Basically,

Getting old sucks!

[Corbi]

So so true. That is par for the course around here.

Last night in a debate about metabolic slow down with age, after I posted several studies showing it to be mostly related to age induced muscular loss and lower activity levels, I still had a guy arguing with me that it was real. Then told I amd the one who it trying to argue.

Get this...the guy is convinced that his metabolism slowed so much when he was 26 that in TWO months he gained 50 lbs. (srs). So he gains 50 lbs in two months....and then what?.... did his metabolism suddenly speed back up and he did not gain weight anymore? Why does he not weigh 8000 lbs now?....

This place just drives me nuts with these ignorant people and their ridiculous notions. I guess it is called a bell curve....but this place seems to attract a lot of people from the left side of it .....yes....tinfoil hats included.

ID, go fuk yourself. You are a 100% pure trolling ass right now. I have zero reason tom lie about what happened to me yet you want to discredit my actual experience just because you didn't personally witness it. I had the same job, my activity level if anything actuallt increased and I did indeed gain 50 lbs in 2 months. I have pictures from that time frame documenting it but it doesn't matter because you are nothing but a straight up @sshole who refuses to listen to single thing anyone else has to say. Yes I am fukkin pissed when someone comes in and tries to discredit myself and flat out calls me a liar. I have zero to prove to you or anyone else here, what the fuk would be my purpose to relate my story? Unlike you I don't need the accolades of internet strangers and certainly don't need the nut hugging you so desire.

Is the tren screwing with your head that much that you want to call everyone a liar lately? You didn't get the answers and 100% definitive proof in the other thread that anyone who works out and eats without weighing everything and making a fukkin chart is obviously a fat fool, so now you are on campaign to basicvally be an ass.

[azstrengthcoach]

ID, go fuk yourself. You are a 100% pure trolling ass right now. I have zero reason tom lie about what happened to me yet you want to discredit my actual experience just because you didn't personally witness it. I had the same job, my activity level if anything actuallt increased and I did indeed gain 50 lbs in 2 months. I have pictures from that time frame documenting it but it doesn't matter because you are nothing but a straight up @sshole who refuses to listen to single thing anyone else has to say. Yes I am fukkin pissed when someone comes in and tries to discredit myself and flat out calls me a liar. I have zero to prove to you or anyone else here, what the fuk would be my purpose to relate my story? Unlike you I don't need the accolades of internet strangers and certainly don't need the nut hugging you so desire.

Is the tren screwing with your head that much that you want to call everyone a liar lately? You didn't get the answers and 100% definitive proof in the other thread that anyone who works out and eats without weighing everything and making a fukkin chart is obviously a fat fool, so now you are on campaign to basicvally be an ass.

I think ID is tying to point out that gaining 50lbs on 2 months isn't due to the gradual age related decline I metabolism. Clearly something hormonal happened.

[Tristan95]

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.

It depends how far you want to look at it, Im assuming you just mean for regular instances, then sure give or take it will be the same taking factors such as body make-up etc. however if you were to do an autopsy on both people and evaluated every aspect of both persons bodies in incredible detail, then there will be a fair bit of difference

[Corbi]

I think ID is tying to point out that gaining 50lbs on 2 months isn't due to the gradual age related decline I metabolism. Clearly something hormonal happened.

Hormonal or metabolism, whatever that's arguing semantics. Point is that pretentious pompous prick wants to sit back and discredit myself, Charles and others when he doesn't know the facts and sure as fuk isn't a Dr. Clown takes 100 different supplements and then chalks his gains up to his bullchit anabolic diet...yea whatever stick another needle in your ass and then make another ghey dancing db video or that goofy leg one.

[mslman71]

If they were all the same an isocaloric all carb diet would have the same effects as an all protien diet.

Which nobody does. I refer you to my earlier post with the qualifiers of "not mainlining lard" and not "snorting high fructose corn syrup" 24 hours a day every day for weeks on end. Worrying about whether one star is closer than another star when they are both 10s of light years away is fine and dandy if you're an astronomer but if you're sitting on earth with a rocket ship it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

Under typical conditions that most of us find ourselves in on a daily basis it is not that important to consider the difference between the different sources of calories.

Of course, we can make this as complicated as we want, just like all the noobs do about workouts and wondering if BCSFW+ supplemented 14.355112996 seconds post squat is better than 1.55112223 minutes before entering the gym or whether or not only getting 148.22411g of protein instead of the recommended 151.5g of protein will cause them to lose all their gains when they've barely managed to finish 3 workouts since their new years resolution, as if a few points off their dietary recommended macronutrient distribution or failing to correctly interpret their undulating periodization algorithm is really the short stick in reaching their workout goals.

[azstrengthcoach]

Which nobody does. I refer you to my earlier post with the qualifiers of "not mainlining lard" and not "snorting high fructose corn syrup" 24 hours a day every day for weeks on end. Worrying about whether one star is closer than another star when they are both 10s of light years away is fine and dandy if you're an astronomer but if you're sitting on earth with a rocket ship it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

Under typical conditions that most of us find ourselves in on a daily basis it is not that important to consider the difference between the different sources of calories.

Of course, we can make this as complicated as we want, just like all the noobs do about workouts and wondering if BCSFW+ supplemented 14.355112996 seconds post squat is better than 1.55112223 minutes before entering the gym or whether or not only getting 148.22411g of protein instead of the recommended 151.5g of protein will cause them to lose all their gains when they've barely managed to finish 3 workouts since their new years resolution, as if a few points off their dietary recommended macronutrient distribution or failing to correctly interpret their undulating periodization algorithm is really the short stick in reaching their workout goals.

If you believe calories in vs calories out is all that matters there shouldn't be qualifiers.

[Jedwab]

It depends how far you want to look at it, Im assuming you just mean for regular instances, then sure give or take it will be the same taking factors such as body make-up etc. however if you were to do an autopsy on both people and evaluated every aspect of both persons bodies in incredible detail, then there will be a fair bit of difference

The question was always simple - weight loss, that's it. Assuming its the same person ( in terms of everything so body comp/metabolism etc) . Who does sweet fa, and mostly sits on their arse on the sofa - sedentary lifestyle.

[mslman71]

If you believe calories in vs calories out is all that matters there shouldn't be qualifiers.

Well, I don't subscribe to faith based nutrition ("believe"). I do subscribe to the notion of making reasonable approximations in order to facilitate the solution of a particular problem. If people in the real world believed that there were no need for qualifiers and assumptions we'd still be hunting our food with clubs and hiding under trees in the rain. Approximations and assumptions are part of everything, from manufacturing the ICs in your computer to landing men on the moon. Welcome to the real universe we live in.

Barring doing something flat-out stupid or being an outlier, calories in versus calories out will get you very close to the right answer.

[azstrengthcoach]

Well, I don't subscribe to faith based nutrition ("believe"). I do subscribe to the notion of making reasonable approximations in order to facilitate the solution of a particular problem. If people in the real world believed that there were no need for qualifiers and assumptions we'd still be hunting our food with clubs and hiding under trees in the rain. Approximations and assumptions are part of everything, from manufacturing the ICs in your computer to landing men on the moon. Welcome to the real universe we live in.

According to you calories in vs calories out is all that matters correct?

[mslman71]

According to you calories in vs calories out is all that matters correct?

Barring doing something flat-out stupid or being an outlier, calories in versus calories out will get you very close to the right answer.

[IronCharles]

So yes....over your lifetime....a 20-30 calorie difference..... You are right! BRB....eating .3 calories less daily day then I did a few years ago to account for my metabolic slow down.

This post proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are clueless about nutrition . Are you seriously implying that everyone's metabolism is the same? You are going to take figures off a webpage and say that's me?? Lol, everyone's metabolism is different, bro. No, really ....its true! Yet you're going to take a couple statements you found with Google and say they prove what happened to Corbi and I never happened??

I just cannot stop laughing! At least you admit you were wrong, and that metabolic aging is real. Too bad you don't realize that it changes changes at different rates for different people. Keep trying to pigeonhole people with your stereotypes. Even you can eventually guess and be right once in a while. Today just isn't that day.

[azstrengthcoach]

Barring doing something flat-out stupid or being an outlier, calories in versus calories out will get you very close to the right answer.

Yes or no?