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.
|
Thread: Is it just maths????
-
01-26-2013, 07:53 AM #1
- Join Date: Nov 2012
- Location: Hampshire, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 147
- Rep Power: 350
Is it just maths????
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/jedwab1976
Live & let live
-
01-26-2013, 08:04 AM #2
Technically they should lose the same amount of weight if they are fatties. Calories in vs. calories out to a certain point. Body composition however is an entirely different discussion. The one eating the good food will eventually be leaner and more healthy, the other who eats just junk will go from a big fat person to a little fat person.
Where the mind goes the body follows.
IG @imbakes
MFP bakerjb19
-
01-26-2013, 08:09 AM #3
-
01-26-2013, 08:11 AM #4
Hi Jed - it'll be interesting to read the responses, but yes a calorie is a calorie, and the only way to lose weight is to be in a caloric deficit. IMO, many of the restrictive diets people follow like adkins, paleo, low carb, ornish, etc, end up limiting food choices so the person ends up in a deficit. To me, including a little of everything but watching portions and tracking numbers makes the experience more sustainable and enjoyable. There are arguments to be made for various food perservatives, artificial sweetners, etc, but to me I just first make sure I hit my macros, then keep it in the caloric range I'm shooting for. To be honest, what I've found is that by eating whole foods (versus processed, fast food, etc), I'm able to get more quantity of food - not always, but in general. When you are restricted, on a cut, etc, I find it way easier to have a huge salad or some brown rice rather than a much smaller portion to hit the same number. That might not hold true for everyone, but mentally it's much easier to put up with.
Here's a great link from the nutrition forum on macros and daily caloric estimations:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=121703981
Thanks, and good luck!
-
-
01-26-2013, 08:21 AM #5
- Join Date: Nov 2012
- Location: Hampshire, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 147
- Rep Power: 350
A calorie deficit will yield the same weight loss. The difference will be composition
We are assuming they are normal people here btw , maybe a bit overweight but necessarily fatties.http://www.myfitnesspal.com/jedwab1976
Live & let live
-
01-26-2013, 08:23 AM #6
- Join Date: Sep 2010
- Location: United States
- Age: 76
- Posts: 4,848
- Rep Power: 63065
This is a pretty good article---
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...a-calorie.html
-
01-26-2013, 08:27 AM #7
-
01-26-2013, 08:39 AM #8
-
-
01-26-2013, 08:48 AM #9
-
01-26-2013, 08:52 AM #10
-
01-26-2013, 08:53 AM #11
-
01-26-2013, 08:57 AM #12
-
-
01-26-2013, 09:00 AM #13
LOL. This argument will never be settled. Peoples' long-held beliefs based on myths, gym lore, muscle magazine articles (with their own agendas) and supplement company propaganda will always sway at least some folks as to what goes into someone's body composition.
If you look into the science of it though, things become quite a bit more clear. Until someone gets down to near-single-digit body fat, such minor details as TEF and food 'types' (simple or complex carb sources) aren't going to make any difference. The protein, carb, and fat content of a greasy slice of pizza will be used by the body in the same manner as those macros that come from boiled chicken and rice (of course, the macro balance will be different, but this can be allowed for by macro tracking).
Note that we're not discussing health here, only body composition. Only a moron would claim that it's equally healthy to eat 1000 calories of table sugar as it is to eat 1000 calories of fruit, vegetables, potatoes, pasta, etc. But the fact remains that the same 4000 calories are presented by both choices, and they will be processed the same by the body.Last edited by ironwill2008; 01-26-2013 at 09:05 AM.
No brain, no gain.
"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
Where the mind goes, the body follows.
Ironwill Gym:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=629719403&postcount=3388
Ironwill2008 Journal:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=157459343&p=1145168733
-
01-26-2013, 09:07 AM #14
-
01-26-2013, 09:14 AM #15No brain, no gain.
"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
Where the mind goes, the body follows.
Ironwill Gym:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=629719403&postcount=3388
Ironwill2008 Journal:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=157459343&p=1145168733
-
01-26-2013, 09:15 AM #16
-
-
01-26-2013, 09:28 AM #17
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,399
- Rep Power: 150402
What if they are both strength training and the "crappy" diet and the "healthy" diet have identical macro profiles? Why would a "healthy diet" person not become a small fat person if they were not strength training
This.
IMO a moot point, as diet composition is only a single variable among a multitude when determining health and composition.
-
01-26-2013, 09:56 AM #18
It's not really so cut and dry since simple carbs are digested at different rates than complex carbs and glycemic indexes do count. Complex carbs make the body work harder to digest as well. In doing so they provide sustained energy versus short burst. Yes a calorie is a calorie but calories are stored within the food and your body must process this energy and convert it to use. Though the difference may be miniscule, i believe complex ie clean carbs are more beneficial to weight loss.
-
01-26-2013, 10:24 AM #19
They are not the same and will have different effects on insulin, metabolism, and many other functions. On the flip side he is your husband and you should listen to him.
"Before my father died, he said the worst thing about growing old was that other men stopped seeing you as dangerous. I've always remembered that, how being dangerous was sacred, a badge of honor." - Act Of Valor
-
01-26-2013, 10:31 AM #20
This^^^
All calories the same statement is shallow and based on 100 year old science. The energy may be the same, but the metabolic effect will be quite different. Some foods have a much higher thermogenic effect, take more calories to process...some may even take more calories to process than they yield. The other factor is basal metabolism rate...influenced by starting body composition.
The answer to your original question is, no they won't necessarily lose the same amount of weight.
-
-
01-26-2013, 10:53 AM #21
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,399
- Rep Power: 150402
The glycemic index/load MAY be appropriate to consider if you are a sedentary diabetic that constantly overfeeds.
I am more interested in what you know than what you believe.
Since you don't like "outdated science", can you produce any evidence to the above? Even on the extreme ends of scale, TEF isn't going to account for a whole lot of anything in terms of weightloss. You may as well recommend drinking ice water to lose weight.
(Please don't link me to the study were the chick was feeding cheese sandwiches to the subjects).
-
01-26-2013, 11:05 AM #22
Since you don't like "outdated science", can you produce any evidence to the above? Even on the extreme ends of scale, TEF isn't going to account for a whole lot of anything in terms of weightloss. You may as well recommend drinking ice water to lose weight.
(Please don't link me to the study were the chick was feeding cheese sandwiches to the subjects).[/QUOTE]
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20120...study-suggests
sure nuff. classically trained dieticians have been taught otherwise for decades. partly why we have obesity running a muck. 500 cal of broccoli does not = 500 calories of your favorite fast food...never did, never will.
-
01-26-2013, 11:13 AM #23No brain, no gain.
"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
Where the mind goes, the body follows.
Ironwill Gym:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=629719403&postcount=3388
Ironwill2008 Journal:
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=157459343&p=1145168733
-
01-26-2013, 11:31 AM #24
-
-
01-26-2013, 11:36 AM #25
No. And here's why.
Say person A eats only carbohydrates. Person B eats only protein. But, they eat the same amount of calories. Person B will eventually weigh more, because they will have protein to support muscle growth and repair. Person A's muscles will waste away without the building blocks to maintain them. Now, muscle is twice as dense as fat, so the person with more muscle will naturally weigh more.★DSC★
★MISC Cologne Crew★
★4200 cals a day crew★
★Squat Booty Sorority Fan Club★
★Forum Member #109,914,313★
► ► ►Dirty South Crew gear: https://www.zazzle.com/s/thedirtysouthlifts ◄ ◄ ◄ (Proceeds go to children's charities)
-
01-26-2013, 11:54 AM #26
-
01-26-2013, 12:07 PM #27
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...post1007176473
I think this thread will answer your questions. It's all about what degree of lipogenic adaptation you have when beginning your cut. If neither do, it won't really matter as its strictly thermodynamics. If they do, the lipolytic pattern will reduce this state and enable more efficient fat loss. The lipogenic pattern (carb-based) will prevent efficient reduction of these adaptive processes (anorexigenic hormonal resistance) and cause the fat loss process to be intermittent and non-adaptive, and will result in (when calories are restricted) both a release of orexigenic (starved state) hormones, as well as a anorexigenic hormonal resistance withdrawal reaction as well. Not very efficient, and certainly not pleasant. Once resistance states are reduced/eliminated, its strictly thermodynamics, as long as carb intake does not result in lipogenic readaptation....Last edited by KLMARB; 01-26-2013 at 12:23 PM.
I'll take arrogance and the inevitable hubris over self-doubt and lack of confidence, anyday.......
-
01-26-2013, 12:34 PM #28
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.
Why would a "healthy diet" person not become a small fat person if they were not strength training
IMO a moot point, as diet composition is only a single variable among a multitude when determining health and composition.Where the mind goes the body follows.
IG @imbakes
MFP bakerjb19
-
-
01-26-2013, 12:50 PM #29
-
01-26-2013, 12:56 PM #30
Similar Threads
-
Is all this maths essential ?
By AL229868 in forum NutritionReplies: 7Last Post: 12-02-2011, 04:55 AM -
So I'm supposed to do maths and economics homework
By piszczel in forum Teen Misc.Replies: 31Last Post: 12-07-2008, 01:31 PM
Bookmarks