Is it just maths????

[Jedwab]

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.

[baker]

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

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.

[Iceman1800]

Based off science, the good food vs bad food is bs. A calorie deficit will yield the same weight loss. The difference will be composition. Macros are the important part that's missing in your argument. Carbs, protein and fats need to enter into the equation.

[racedoc]

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!

[Jedwab]

A calorie deficit will yield the same weight loss. The difference will be composition

Ok, so I am right then? The argument is not about composition its purely weightloss - so will those two people lose the same amount of weight because their deficit is the same?

We are assuming they are normal people here btw , maybe a bit overweight but necessarily fatties.

[ljimd]

This is a pretty good article---

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...a-calorie.html

[Iceman1800]

Since calories break down at 4 per g of protein 4 per g of carb and 8 per g of fat it would seem there is no way the person eating the same calories but having his macros completely reversed could still lose weight.

1200 calories is 1200 calories regardless of the macros.

[ArchAngel'73]

Based off science, the good food vs bad food is bs. A calorie deficit will yield the same weight loss. The difference will be composition. Macros are the important part that's missing in your argument. Carbs, protein and fats need to enter into the equation.

This all day long.

When the individuals reach a state of lower bodyfat (around 10% for males, I don't know for females) it then matters very much what your macros are as you are trying to preserve muscle and lose fat at the same time. This is not done efficiently by eating sh*tty food.

[Jedwab]

OK, maybe im being thick here, but that's not the question. the question is do they lose the same amount of weight, that's it. Not about whats best for you, as that's pretty obvious....

[racedoc]

OK, maybe im being thick here, but that's not the question. the question is do they lose the same amount of weight, that's it. Not about whats best for you, as that's pretty obvious....

Yes.

[Iceman1800]

OK, maybe im being thick here, but that's not the question. the question is do they lose the same amount of weight, that's it. Not about whats best for you, as that's pretty obvious....

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

[Jedwab]

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

****happy dance****

[ironwill2008]

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

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.

[Jedwab]

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?

*still doing happy dance*

[ironwill2008]

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?

*still doing happy dance*

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

[Brackneyc]

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

Maybe.

[acrawlingchaos]

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.

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

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

This.


IMO a moot point, as diet composition is only a single variable among a multitude when determining health and composition.

[Amstat]

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.

[jellodirt]

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.

[PrimeBeef]

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.

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.

[acrawlingchaos]

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.

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.

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.

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).

[PrimeBeef]

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.

[ironwill2008]

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

Who is saying that it does?

[jellodirt]

Who is saying that it does?

The OP.

[IronCharles]

OK, maybe im being thick here, but that's not the question. the question is do they lose the same amount of weight, that's it.

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.

[discdoggie]

The op's husband.

No he said it didn't. She said it did.





I think. I'm confused now.

[KLMARB]

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....

[baker]

What if they are both strength training and the "crappy" diet and the "healthy" diet have identical macro profiles?

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

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.

IMO a moot point, as diet composition is only a single variable among a multitude when determining health and composition.

Yep.

[jellodirt]

No he said it didn't. She said it did.





I think. I'm confused now.

You're right, I mixed them up.

[Jedwab]

Sorry I still don't get it. So assuming that the deficit is the same do they lose the same amount if weight or not ? And what is a moot point? Not a word I heard before ( in UK)...