# A calorie is a calorie is a calorie?



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Low-carbohydrate diets. [Am Fam Physician. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

Low-carbohydrate diets.
Last AR, Wilson SA.
Source
Department of Family and Community Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Racine Family Medicine Residency Program, Racine, Wisconsin 53403, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
Americans spend dollar 33 billion annually on weight loss products and services, and a large portion of this money is spent on low-carbohydrate diets. Because of their higher protein and fat content and lower fiber and carbohydrate content, concerns have been raised about the potential health consequences of low-carbohydrate diets. Published long-term data are lacking. Short-term studies comparing traditional low-fat diets with low-carbohydrate diets found lower triglyceride levels, higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, similar low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and lower A1C levels in persons on low-carbohydrate diets. *These diets induce greater weight loss at three and six months than traditional low-fat diets; however, by one year there is no significant difference* in maintained weight loss. *Weight loss is directly related to calorie content and the ability to maintain caloric restriction; the proportions of nutrients in the diet are irrelevant.* Low-carbohydrate diets had lower dropout rates than low-fat diets in several studies, possibly because of the high protein content and low glycemic index, which can be appetite suppressing. Data indicate that low-carbohydrate diets are a safe, reasonable alternative to low-fat diets for weight loss. Additional studies are needed to investigate the long-term safety and effectiveness of these and other approaches to weight loss.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

MMS: Error

RESULTS
Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet had lost more weight than subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (mean [±SD], –6.8±5.0 vs. –2.7±3.7 percent of body weight; P=0.001) and 6 months (–7.0±6.5 vs. –3.2±5.6 percent of body weight, P=0.02), *but the difference at 12 months was not significant* (–4.4±6.7 vs. –2.5±6.3 percent of body weight, P=0.26). After three months, no significant differences were found between the groups in total or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. The increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations and the decrease in triglyceride concentrations were greater among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet than among those on the conventional diet throughout most of the study. *Both diets significantly decreased diastolic blood pressure and the insulin response to an oral glucose load.*


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

From a thermodynamic standpoint, yes. Energy is energy. Now the way you body manipulates different calories and either stores or burns them is a whole separate issue.


----------



## associative (Jul 1, 2013)

No.

Thermic effect of food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The thermic effect of food is the energy required for digestion, absorption, and disposal of ingested nutrients. Its magnitude depends on the composition of the food consumed:


Carbohydrates: 5 to 15 % of the energy consumed
Protein: 20 to 35%
Fats: at most 5 to 15 %[SUP][/SUP]
[SUP]

[/SUP]IMO the success of low-carb diets is down to hormonal manipulation and social factors (such as the ease of following the diet out of a home-environment). Basically low-carb diets are better at holding off hunger, and they are relatively simple and convenient to follow.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

associative said:


> No.
> 
> Thermic effect of food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The thermic effect of food is the energy required for digestion, absorption, and disposal of ingested nutrients. Its magnitude depends on the composition of the food consumed:
> ...


I'm referring to as a unit of energy itself. I was just taking into account that if a person consumes X calories they theoretically have X calories to burn. Basically the law of thermodynamics.


----------



## associative (Jul 1, 2013)

PowerShell said:


> I'm referring to as a unit of energy itself. I was just taking into account that if a person consumes X calories they theoretically have X calories to burn. Basically the law of thermodynamics.


My reply wasn't directly to you. I'm aware that a calorie is the amount of energy required to heat a gram of water by one degree Celsius. 
I guess even then, in the context of nutrition vs thermodynamics, a calories is not a calorie, it's a kilocalorie!

But this is the Health and Fitness subforum, not Science and Technology. :wink:


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Low-carb diets are good to use for a limited time, to boost weight loss. Other than that, they don't offer much and are quite hard to maintain. A balance in macros percentages, quality food choices, but a restriction of total calories is the best way to lose weight and change your lifestyle.


----------



## bluekitdon (Dec 19, 2012)

I've heard that a calorie is a calorie many times, and strictly speaking that is completely accurate. That's why monitoring your intake is so good at producing weight loss using sites like Free Calorie Counter, Diet & Exercise Journal | MyFitnessPal.com.

For example, look at this study of a nutrition professor losing 27 lbs and getting much healthier while on a "Twinkie" diet primarily consisting of junk food. Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com

That being said, it is probably easier in the long term to maintain a healthy weight to simply eliminate or limit certain foods from your diet that are very high in calories such as french fries and increase certain foods that are lower in calories such as fruits and vegetables. It should be considered a lifestyle change, not really a diet.

Great study on weight gain/loss over the long haul. Basically eat fewer fries, potato chips, drink less soda, eat more veggies, fruits, & nuts.


> On the basis of increased daily servings of individual dietary components, 4-year weight change was most strongly associated with the intake of potato chips (1.69 lb), potatoes (1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (1.00 lb), unprocessed red meats (0.95 lb), and processed meats (0.93 lb) and was inversely associated with the intake of vegetables (−0.22 lb), whole grains (−0.37 lb), fruits (−0.49 lb), nuts (−0.57 lb), and yogurt (−0.82 lb) (P≤0.005 for each comparison).


Changes in Diet and Lifestyle and Long-Term Weight Gain in Women and Men - MMS: Error


----------



## Zombie Devil Duckie (Apr 11, 2012)

I've dropped 30 pounds since Feb 2013 simply by using myfitnesspal to monitor calories in v.s. calories out. I haven't cut anything out of my diet. I'm monitoring what I eat and using that to make smarter decisions based on my calorie goal. It's surprising at times to see how calorie dense certain foods are.

By nature, I'm a budgeter so limiting myself to (currently) 2,060 calories per day was an easy thing to do. The vast amount of data provided by people on the myfitnesspal.com website (empirical evidence) suggests that it's simply calories in v.s. calories out.

Blood stats are a different matter, as the food you eat and your genetic lotto determine your A1C, Triglicerides, etc... 

-ZDD


----------



## OutOfThisWorld (Nov 4, 2013)

In a sense, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie is absolutely correct. 

However, how our body interacts with that particular food item is a whole different story. 

Losing weight, while only watching calories, but not the types of food consumed is not a good long-term goal for your health.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

I'm torn on this, even after years of working as a nutritionist and using diet to manipulate my own body composition.

I think, based on personal and professional experience and research, that a low-carb, high protein, moderate fat diet is best for most people. I've never counted calories and I'm able to change my weight just by watching portion sizes. I couldn't tell you how many calories I consume on average - I have no idea.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

One piece of advice I should take from a guy I used to work with (who was around 50 at the time) was, "You're young. Just keep moving around and the pounds will fall off. Back in my day I used to get done with work and immediately go snowmobiling or something like that all the time and I was skinny as heck and never gained a pound." I guess I'm trying to take his advice and move more. I know working a desk job doesn't help a lot.


----------



## thejock (Aug 31, 2013)

PowerShell said:


> One piece of advice I should take from a guy I used to work with (who was around 50 at the time) was, "You're young. Just keep moving around and the pounds will fall off. Back in my day I used to get done with work and immediately go snowmobiling or something like that all the time and I was skinny as heck and never gained a pound." I guess I'm trying to take his advice and move more. I know working a desk job doesn't help a lot.


If you are living a low-active life the small things like taking the stairs and stop at one busstop before your usual and walk the last bit counts alot!


----------



## Mr Canis (Mar 3, 2012)




----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

Mr Canis said:


>


This actually raises an important point. If one consumes 1200 calories/day in candy vs 1200 calories per day in a high protein, moderate fat, low-carb diet, think about what the difference will be in body composition rather than scale weight.


----------

