Do Calories Matter at All?

[zmktwzrd]

I am confused about something. I have been a long time low carb "dieter" and have lost weight many times with the Atkins approach, only to gain it back with a return to carbs. I also just read Gary Taubes excellent book "Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It". For those with a scientific mind he does an excellent job explaining precisely the mechanism that causes carbs to add fat (Insulin), and goes on to explain that "A Calorie is NOT a Calorie".........He sites good case studies where people are put on low calorie diets yet don't lose weight, yet put those same people on HIGH calorie diets (minus carbs) and they DO lose weight! (not just one study like this but MANY similar, in essence proving that the calories in Vs. calories burned model is flawed)

BUT, here is my confusion, do calories play ANY role in the equation?

If ONLY insulin is the cause of weight being stored as fat and calories are not what matters (but rather insulin / carb's) then are we saying that I could eat 5,000 (or 10,000) calories per day in protein without gaining fat?

After all, if calories don't matter then I should be able to eat however many I want as long as there are no carbs (insulin stimulation) right????

Based on the "science", the body will not store fat in the absence of insulin. Is this true??? Once again, can I eat 5000 calories per day and my body will not store any of this as fat because it was not accompanied by insulin?

I'm not looking for a superficial or anecdotal answer like "you should watch both", but rather a scientific explanation of WHY I would gain "fat" from 5000 calories of pure protein with no carbs.

Once again, the "theory" says "no insulin = no fat storing"........

Is it possible that we need to watch calories too because excess protein can ALSO cause insulin levels to rise?

Or is it incorrect to say that the body ONLY stores fat in the presence of insulin, can it also store fat in the absence of insulin?

Thanks in advance!

[ojoj]

I dont like the calorie thing - I dont think its a good measurement, there are too many variables, I think Taubes says that all foods behave differently once we ingest them. I dont believe a fat calorie is the same as a vegetable calorie. Too much food is going to have effect tho. I believe that if you eat too much protein, then it starts to act as carbs once it hit the blood and will bring the insulin in.

When I was losing weight the first time, I was eating on average 4000 cals a day and losing just fine. This time round I did have to eat less, altho I did eat a lot of fat, which is apparently high in Calories -so....????

jo xxx

[Nancy LC]

For some of us they seem to matter. YMMV, especially as a male.

[j_the_p]

You need fat and lots of it. 5000 calories of pure protein only, would eventually kill you. I believe it would also cause your liver to perform glucogenesis which would then cause you to store fat.

[Liz53]

If you are type 1 diabetic, producing no insulin, then yes, you could eat 5000 calories a day and lose weight. For the rest of us they matter to varying degrees.

I'm not looking for a superficial or anecdotal answer like "you should watch both", but rather a scientific explanation of WHY I would gain "fat" from 5000 calories of pure protein with no carbs.

I think you may be setting the bar a bit high for this sort of forum. You know, Gary Taubes has a website www.garytaubes.com. You may or may not be satisfied with the answers here, but you could try posing your questions there.

Anyway, here's my attempt: not only carbs trigger the release of insulin. Protein does as well, but only ~60% as much, gram for gram. Even fat causes a very small release of insulin and for that matter, just thinking about food can cause its release.

As for my anecdotal take on it: Calories still matter in the sense that I can not eat unlimited amounts of food. However, I'm very satisfied eating less food (calories) than it would take me eating ad libitum of a carb-heavy diet. And in terms of losing, I can eat more calories and lose weight than I could if I were eating proportionately more carbs. It is much easier to lose weight when you are not starving all the time.

[M Levac]

I am confused about something. I have been a long time low carb "dieter" and have lost weight many times with the Atkins approach, only to gain it back with a return to carbs. I also just read Gary Taubes excellent book "Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It". For those with a scientific mind he does an excellent job explaining precisely the mechanism that causes carbs to add fat (Insulin), and goes on to explain that "A Calorie is NOT a Calorie".........He sites good case studies where people are put on low calorie diets yet don't lose weight, yet put those same people on HIGH calorie diets (minus carbs) and they DO lose weight! (not just one study like this but MANY similar, in essence proving that the calories in Vs. calories burned model is flawed)

BUT, here is my confusion, do calories play ANY role in the equation?

If ONLY insulin is the cause of weight being stored as fat and calories are not what matters (but rather insulin / carb's) then are we saying that I could eat 5,000 (or 10,000) calories per day in protein without gaining fat?

After all, if calories don't matter then I should be able to eat however many I want as long as there are no carbs (insulin stimulation) right????

Based on the "science", the body will not store fat in the absence of insulin. Is this true??? Once again, can I eat 5000 calories per day and my body will not store any of this as fat because it was not accompanied by insulin?

I'm not looking for a superficial or anecdotal answer like "you should watch both", but rather a scientific explanation of WHY I would gain "fat" from 5000 calories of pure protein with no carbs.

Once again, the "theory" says "no insulin = no fat storing"........

Is it possible that we need to watch calories too because excess protein can ALSO cause insulin levels to rise?

Or is it incorrect to say that the body ONLY stores fat in the presence of insulin, can it also store fat in the absence of insulin?

Thanks in advance!
Welcome to the forum. Stick around, we'll help you figure it out. If not here now, then later on as you figure it out bit by bit.

First bit to figure out correctly, the "theory" is: Carbohydrates drive insulin drive excess fat accumulation. If you word it just a tiny bit differently, you get into a whole lot of trouble because every word in the theory means something. For example, the word "excess" is important because otherwise it's just "fat accumulation". Well, fat accumulation happens every time you eat, and that's normal. So, the theory specifies excess fat accumulation, not just normal fat accumulation. Actually, it can be worded even more precisely like this "carbohydrates drive excess insulin...", because there is always some insulin, and that's normal.

Next important bit is that this is not the only way obesity can be created. Instead, it's just the primary way, or the most common way. I often paraphrase Taubes this way: Insulin is the primary regulator of fat tissue, and carbohydrates is the primary regulator of insulin, therefore carbohydrates is the primary regulator of fat tissue. If you read WWGF, you know all this, but it's still a good idea to make sure we know exactly what we're talking about. Primary is not the same as only.

Anyway, so the real question isn't "do calories matter", but instead it's "how much do calories matter"? See, that's because we've established that what matters most is carbs/insulin. We didn't establish that it's the only thing that matters, see? So in effect, calories could still matter, but not as much as we used to believe. Let's say carbs/insulin matter for about 75% of the equation. That leaves us a potential 25% for calories to matter. Put differently, whatever effect calories do have, only has 25% strength. But then, calories ain't the only other things that can matter. There's other hormones involved like growth hormone (which directly opposes insulin at the fat tissue: GH shrinks fat tissue) and epinephrine (the stress hormone) for example. Drugs and medications could matter too. Then there's activity, but not in terms of calories spent, instead it's in terms of its effect on hormones. So that 25% strength is actually lower than that. Maybe 10%, dunno, didn't check.

Another way to look at it is with rates. When you eat, there's fat accumulation at rate X. In-between meals, there's fat release at rate Y. With more insulin, fat release is now at a slower rate Z. The balance between fat accumulation from meals, and fat release in-between meals is what actually creates obesity/leanness. And all that is primarily regulated by insulin, which is primarily regulated by dietary carbohydrates.

[WereBear]

Actually, the metabolic reasoning behind the Fat Fast is to not trigger much of an insulin release while still not being hungry.

Eating a lot of good FAT is incredibly satisfying; it's what my body has been craving for so many years. It is a better fuel; it is a more satisfying fuel; so despite the calories it has less of a fat accumulation impact, if I understand what M Levac is saying.

[Elizellen]

If I recall correctly this book (free pdf download) has quite a good explanation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19274677/Eat-Fat-and-Grow-Slim-by-Mackarness

[Firefly428]

BUT, here is my confusion, do calories play ANY role in the equation? YES they play a part. but just a part. there is so much involved and intrigue with the human body

After all, if calories don't matter then I should be able to eat however many I want as long as there are no carbs (insulin stimulation) right???? NOPE. You can't eat tons of food and not expect your body to be over-indulged. you eat tons of protein your body will have to do something with it. like convert the extra into glucose (or xxx cause I can't always remember what I read about this stuff lol. ALSO it isn't all about insulin either!



you really have to go off into the big internet world and read and read. best one can do when you are asking about real science and no one here can give it to you in real scientific terms. but one thing I know, nothing about the human body is simple. not the process involved with foods, chemicals and a million more things :) and then people are so unique. what works for one will not be the same process in another person's body.

[2thinchix]

Actually, the metabolic reasoning behind the Fat Fast is to not trigger much of an insulin release while still not being hungry.

Eating a lot of good FAT is incredibly satisfying; it's what my body has been craving for so many years. It is a better fuel; it is a more satisfying fuel; so despite the calories it has less of a fat accumulation impact, if I understand what M Levac is saying.

But doesn't the fat fast still have a calorie limit of 1000 per day?

[kwikdriver]

Try an experiment: go a couple of weeks eating nothing but beef fat, but 5,000 calories of it a day. See if you gain weight. Then you'll know the answer, at least for yourself.

[ojoj]

Try an experiment: go a couple of weeks eating nothing but beef fat, but 5,000 calories of it a day. See if you gain weight. Then you'll know the answer, at least for yourself.

:Puke: lol

Jo xxx

[kwikdriver]

:Puke: lol

Jo xxx

I've taken beef fat and roasted it until it was crisp, and I have to tell you it tastes quite good. But I've always liked animal fats; some people say they don't.

[teaser]

First time poster, asking highly contentious question. Good thing I'm not the suspicious sort. :lol:

I don't think I've ever seen Taubes make a clear claim that you can't get fatter overfeeding yourself on protein. I may have seen him theorizing that it might be impossible--like with the whole glycerol 3 phosphate thing, where he said that glucose limited triglyceride synthesis, so it might limit how fat a person could get. And he's quoted people saying it's almost impossible to overeat protein--but not that, if you ever managed to, you couldn't get fat.

It is impossible to get fat absent insulin. Outside of Type I diabetics, nobody is absent insulin.

If you ate five thousand calories of fat and your body didn't store a fair amount of it at least temporarily, you'd have either an awful messy stool or gross lipidemia.


I've tried eating around five thousand calories a day of mostly fat a few times. I can never extend the experiment long enough to get any meaningful results. I think I lost weight the few days I tried it, but ended up a few pounds heavier than I started a week later last time I tried it.

I have noticed one thing--some low carb foods, like cheese, I tend to gorge on if I'm fairly lean. Even though I'll still be pretty lean after a three-day fat fest, the tendency to gorge on cheese or nuts pretty much goes away. I haven't really tested this rigorously, so this might be an imaginary finding. :lol: If I ever manage to get as lean as I'd like to be, maybe I'll test it. I think, when somebody asked Lyle MacDonald if there were any benefits to a fat refeed once, he called it a "fat-sparing fast." :lol: But I don't think he had any more real science behind him to say that than he did for the carb-heavy leptin refeeds he pioneered.

[JordanS]

Biggest problem with counting calories is that there is no consideration with regard to what your body does with the SOURCE of calories.

There is a limit to how much you need, there is also a limit to how much you can tolerate...

Great thing about low carb diets is the appetite suppression thats built in. when the body is burning fat for fuel, you wont have much of an appetite at all. Even when you do get hungry you will fill up quickly.

There is no reason to count calories on a low carb diet because of this. If your carbs are low enough, and you arent losing weight there is probably something else going on.. I.e. Hormonal imbalance, eating fake "low carb" foods, not drinking enough water, eating when not hungry, etc.

[aj_cohn]

If I recall correctly this book (free pdf download) has quite a good explanation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19274677/Eat-Fat-and-Grow-Slim-by-Mackarness

How do you get this d/l for free? Scribd is insisting that I sign up for a paid membership or 1-day access, which is more expensive than buying the book used on Amazon.

[aj_cohn]

Try an experiment: go a couple of weeks eating nothing but beef fat, but 5,000 calories of it a day. See if you gain weight. Then you'll know the answer, at least for yourself.

The result: you'd be malnourished, hungry, and probably fatter.

[ojoj]

The result: you'd be malnourished, hungry, and probably fatter.


You might be malnourished, but you definitely wouldnt be hungry or fatter lol!!!!

Jo xxx

[rwwff]

Disclaimer: I count calories in detail, both cal in, and cal out, and I will always do so.

The problem that the book guys are trying to highlight by going at the "calorie is NOT a calorie" line; isn't that the carb doesn't provide 4 or the fat 9 per, rather that there is more to it than that.

They always show [change] = [ein] - [eout]. The problem is that neither [ein] NOR [eout] are constant. And they influence each other very strongly. If you consciously raise eout, you will get hungrier. If you drop ein you will get tired and be inclined to reduce eout.

Your conscious choices *CAN* override these, but it is a monumental effort of will. Your body is not designed to have your brain NOT obey.

In addition to the hunger signal is also the insulin (what should I do with this fat/sugar you just ate) signal. Carbs really drive that side; and if you drive it hard enough, the insulin will drown out the leptin signal and you'll get to be full and hungry at the same time. Which is just a lovely experience! Been there, done that, have tshirt.

[M Levac]

How do you get this d/l for free? Scribd is insisting that I sign up for a paid membership or 1-day access, which is more expensive than buying the book used on Amazon.
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=eat+fat+and+grow+slim+by+richard+mackarness+free+download&oq=eat+fat+and+grow+slim+by+richard+mackarness+free+download&gs_l=hp.3...7071.13591.1.13758.17.17.0.0.0.0.144.1862.4j13.17.0...0.0...1c.1j8.7.psy-ab.sF6k8H52788&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44442042,d.aWc&fp=b4938d75ca70ab00&biw=1920&bih=935

4th link is a direct pdf link. "save as" doesn't work. Must open in new window, then "save page as".

[M Levac]

The result: you'd be malnourished, hungry, and probably fatter.
It's possible, but it's equally possible that no malnutrition will occur, no hunger will manifest itself, and no excess fat accumulation will occur either. I think it depends on the fat we're talking about. Is it rendered or whole? Rendered basically means the fat cells and blood vessels are left in the pot, while the trigs are the only thing we actually eat. And we're talking about a couple of weeks, not a lifetime.

[JordanS]

~rwwff

How exactly do you count calories out? Even the most sophisticated machines can get it only within 3%, which could be enough to make you fat over a long period of time, if CICO is all that matters.

Imagine tigers, who eat 15-40lbs of meat per day, having to count calories in order to stay lean. It never happens. If they ate even 100 cal too many everyday for even 3months, they would be pretty chubby. But they dont have to regulate their calories because they only eat meat, which is all they need.

On a real food diet, eating a low/zero carbs there is no reason to count calories.

[kwikdriver]

The result: you'd be malnourished, hungry, and probably fatter.


I think the Eskimos used to live on whale blubber and little else, and seem to have done OK, so I'm skeptical about the health claims. I can tell you that you wouldn't be hungry; nothing sates like fat. I have gone a couple of days where 90%+ of my cals came from fat, and I wasn't hungry at all.

[Liz53]

Imagine tigers, who eat 15-40lbs of meat per day, having to count calories in order to stay lean. It never happens. If they ate even 100 cal too many everyday for even 3months, they would be pretty chubby. But they dont have to regulate their calories because they only eat meat, which is all they need.

That would be true only if calories in and out were all there were to it. Other factors: reduced appetite brought on by overeating; increase in metabolism to compensate.


On a real food diet, eating a low/zero carbs there is no reason to count calories.

In theory, perhaps, and for me it was largely true till I got to within 15 lbs of goal. My body would love to weigh between 145 and 150, but I am not good with that, so I push it to go lower. To meet my goal, it means counting calories as well as carbs. I doubt that I balance energy in and out every single day, but over time I can see that I'm losing weight very slowly, so in general, it seems to be working. I see you are approaching goal - hopefully it will continue to be so easy for you as you close in on it, and as you maintain.

[rwwff]

How exactly do you count calories out? Even the most sophisticated machines can get it only within 3%, which could be enough to make you fat over a long period of time, if CICO is all that matters

Its complicated... I don't try for perfection of course, tis impossible, but what I try to do is a combination of recording + upper and lower bound constraint.

First I weigh in and plot weight every day. This creates a curve with a noise level of 7 pounds. I generally know the source of any particular day's noise, mostly due to glycogen recovery or depletion, and sometimes, err gut issues. lol.

Second, I have a relatively and conveniently average metabolic rate and consistent regular activity level. This places me right about about 2400kcal/day at 180lbs. In addition I have a pricy little HRM that I calibrated to my VO2Max last year; I've had a 10% improvement since then, so I eyeball in that adjustment; I use the HRM EVERY time I do anything that would take my HR above 65%max.

This gives me an Eout with probably a 10-15% error bar.

By combining the food log info, with long term moving boundaries from the weight measurement, against the calculated expenditure, I get sufficient information to match them up and adjust the assumptions in my estimations in order to force them to match measured reality (weight & ein).

Imagine tigers, who eat 15-40lbs of meat per day, having to count calories in order to stay lean. It never happens.

Correct. Because the broken tigers DIE. I am broken. I do not wish to die. Pardon me for using my brain to take over for hormones that no longer work properly.

If they ate even 100 cal too many everyday for even 3months, they would be pretty chubby.
I've seen Taubes state this line too.

Now, imagine if the same broken tiger had a continuous weight plot and made very large short term adjustments every time the curve moved inappropriately.

I can burn, EASILY, 4000 kcal extra on a weekend if I choose to do so. I can more than compensate when my weight measurement curve starts to drift as a result of small errors in Ein and Eout estimation.

On a real food diet, eating a low/zero carbs there is no reason to count calories.

If you are not broken, that is true.

[JordanS]

~rwwff

Maybe my point was lost.

1) If you can "burn" 4000 extra calories in a weekend, how do you measure it?

2) exactly what part of your body uses "calories" as a fuel? How does one "burn" a calorie anway?

[rwwff]

I measure calorie burn via an expensive, calibrated heart rate monitor.

"burn" means oxidize. Muscles oxidize various chemicals to do work. The amount of work done by each fuel type is measured in calories.

[M Levac]

You can calculate Eout after-the-fact. Simple. Measure Ein, measure body weight, do the math.

[rwwff]

That is how I verify it over longer periods, but on a day and single event basis, its impossible since you lose several pounds of water, and there's a bunch of water bound up in the glycogen that gets released and perspired as well....

[JordanS]

so you eat food, absorb EVERY calorie from the food you eat in your calorie receptors, then store them as calories in your calorie reserves and burn them in the calorie furnace as energy in your cells. what you eat has no effect on calorie burn, nor does hormone balance.

I dont think so.

There is NO place in the body that uses or cares about a "calorie".

But some cells use glucose. Some use fat. Many cells use both and simply break them down into ATP.

How do we account for ketone usage? You didnt eat those, but they do have "calories".

What about enzymatic production? Hormone production?

What about gaining "weight" that isnt fatty tissue?

What about your fecal matter? Any idea how many calories are in that?

What about tissue repair? The minerals? Water? Arent these things used for specific purposes and building blocks as well?

What about the thermic effect of food?

The "calorie" tells us nothing about how specific macronutrients get used or unused in the body. All it tells us is how much energy is used to heat water. In a machince. By literally setting that food on fire.

There is 0 translation when it comes to the body.

[ojoj]

so you eat food, absorb EVERY calorie from the food you eat in your calorie receptors, then store them as calories in your calorie reserves and burn them in the calorie furnace as energy in your cells. what you eat has no effect on calorie burn, nor does hormone balance.

I dont think so.

There is NO place in the body that uses or cares about a "calorie".

But some cells use glucose. Some use fat. Many cells use both and simply break them down into ATP.

How do we account for ketone usage? You didnt eat those, but they do have "calories".

What about enzymatic production? Hormone production?

What about gaining "weight" that isnt fatty tissue?

What about your fecal matter? Any idea how many calories are in that?

What about tissue repair? The minerals? Water? Arent these things used for specific purposes and building blocks as well?

What about the thermic effect of food?

The "calorie" tells us nothing about how specific macronutrients get used or unused in the body. All it tells us is how much energy is used to heat water. In a machince. By literally setting that food on fire.

There is 0 translation when it comes to the body. I wish I could have explained it like that - YES!!!!!

Jo xxxx

[j_the_p]

so you eat food, absorb EVERY calorie from the food you eat in your calorie receptors, then store them as calories in your calorie reserves and burn them in the calorie furnace as energy in your cells. what you eat has no effect on calorie burn, nor does hormone balance.

I dont think so.

...snip...

The "calorie" tells us nothing about how specific macronutrients get used or unused in the body. All it tells us is how much energy is used to heat water. In a machince. By literally setting that food on fire.

There is 0 translation when it comes to the body.

:thup: :thup: :thup:
Awesome post. :agree:

[MizKitty]

then are we saying that I could eat 5,000 (or 10,000) calories per day in protein without gaining fat?

Substitute the word "fat" for "protein"... and you could probably eat 2500 - 3000 (being a large male) without problem. But for most people, it's not easy to consistently achieve a <75% fat diet.
And most will find, as the pounds come off, the calories will need to start coming down too, for weight loss to continue. But most also find that happens quite naturally as they stick to LC, no massive effort needed.

Excess protein gets converted to glucose and will cause an insulin response. As a meat-loving type II, I lived in denial of that for many years, and always failed at maintenance, even while remaining low carb.

Now I strive to eat high fat, moderate protein, VLC, and am finally succeeding at maintenance.

Here's a post I have bookmarked citing places in his books Dr Atkins talks about calories:
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost.php?p=8567697&postcount=4

[rwwff]

Most of my active body mass utilizes both fat and glucose. I rarely go to ketone usage. Hormones, etc are inclusive in the base rate calculation, I'm not gaining any muscle or fat mass; poop is pretty much calorie zilch. Tissue repair is included in base rate; water I get in vast excess, minerals I account for; thermic effect of food is very small for me because of food choice.

FWIW...I track macronutrients in detail and keep ratio estimates of type within type as well. They are every bit as important. Calorie is a useful NET of energy consumed and burned, and the most applicable in situations where the substrates are interchangeable like sub lactate threshold exercise.

You are suggesting that because it is complicated and has inherent error, it can't be done with acceptable accuracy. I'm pointing out that ALL scientific measurements have error, and acceptability for the usefulness of the measurement is dependent upon the use and the user. For my uses and purposes, the available accuracy is sufficient to provide acceptable results.

The acceptable result being stable body weight with no loss in activity level, and no harmful contribution to BP, lipids, or bG (spikes and average).

[JordanS]

Im not suggesting that its complicated. Im suggesting that calorie counting is so over simplified as to not be important.

Im also suggesting your thinking is flawed. You can measure and weigh and experiment on gasoline for years, but it makes no difference if you have a deisel engine.

A calorie is a nothing as far as the bio-chemistry of your body goes. Because the body cannot take a "calorie" and do anything with it.

[rwwff]

A calorie is a nothing as far as the bio-chemistry of your body goes. Because the body cannot take a "calorie" and do anything with it.

I don't think you're quite getting it... I track carbs, I track fat, I track protein, I ballpark MUFA/PUFA/SFA // o6:o3; I track all kinds of junk.

The word "calorie" is just shorthand for the net energy contained in all the various macros WHICH I TRACK AND MONITOR.

Its sorta like the "cholesterol" numbers. To talk to general audience people, the conversation has to stay with trig/hdl/ldl; to slightly educated people, you can introduce ratios, to more lipidly aware, you can bring in LDL-P, apo[--], IR scores, lp(a) characteristics. That high detail of the last option, doesn't invalidate the broad brush, but rather adds information to it.

"calorie" is the broad brush.
carb/fat/prot in and general calories expended above baseline is the slightly sophisticated version.
posting recorded HR curves, bG curves, body composition and VO2Max numbers is the high detail. If I feel motivated, I can take a HR curve from a 90 minute ride, and I can tell you how many grams of fat it burned, and how many grams of glucose it burned. Its not been necessary for me to go that far, because it averages out via glycogen depletion and recovery, since I am not doing ketosis and I eat enough carbs to achieve recovery. It would be slightly more relevant on perhaps a 60+ mile ride where I could zero out muscle glycogen if I wasn't paying attention.

For the discussion of "how much should I eat"; the broad brush is sufficient, since the measurement of food has a good 20% error bar in general. Short of drinking straight olive oil or table sugar.

Does "calorie" tell you everything you need to know? Absolutely not.
Is "calorie" a useful term, for some, yes.

[rwwff]

An example:
Typical day 3000 kcal day from this week.

223g fat
134g carb
134g protein

A moderate exercise day alternating between heavy bag, jump rope, and sword kata that consumed 96g glucose and 18g fat above baseline rate.

Food was peanut heavy, so MUFA's won the day, with O6 pufa and SFA about tied for second. Sodium was typical at about 2.5g, potasssium sufficient to balance but not measured.

[JordanS]

I get it quite well.

I count my carbs. Above 40 grams is a bad day for me.

I limit food containing very much PUFAs. Nuts are an occasional treat, and cooking oil is almost always animal based. (coconut oil being the exception)

Doing those things helps my hormones function appropietly, allowing me to keep under 12% body fat without counting any calories ever.

A "calorie" is NOT a fuel source.

Why dont we measure food in joules? Or karots? Or watts? Because those things have no bearing on how the BODY uses FUEL.

On top of that, FOOD, once digested, is not always used as fuel either. building blocks, and waste are 2 options rarely accounted for.

A "calorie" is a measurement of heat. That is all. And it tells us nothing about the energy contained in food.

Unless you are throwing it in a fireplace...

[rwwff]

A "calorie" is NOT a fuel source.
No one is saying it is, yet you keep on with this line. It is a summary, a total of available fuel sources. Fuel sources are carbs, alcohol, and fats, and to a lesser extent proteins, which I keep detailed measurements of. I don't see what the harm is in knowing what their net energy is, or using that as a general (if vague) concept of food intake.

Why dont we measure food in joules?
Some do.
Or karots?
that's mass. I do measure the mass of the foods I eat.
Or watts?
That's power. And it is relevant to how much fuel and what fuel ratios the muscles use. I don't have a power meter on my bike, but I want one... kinda a fun toy, though not really necessary, as I'm not a competitive type person and don't need to optimize performance to that degree.

In the end, all arguments aside, my personal experience is that over a 6 month period of weight loss with detailed food and exercise records, the amount of fat I lost valued at 3500 kcal/pound matched my computed caloric deficit within realistic measurement error. Now maybe it was just magic or coincidence that made the numbers match up, I dunno, but they did match. Thus my bias.

Calorie counts, netting available energy of fat, carb, alcohol and protein, are not the end all be all, but they are useful.

[aj_cohn]

I think the Eskimos used to live on whale blubber and little else, and seem to have done OK, so I'm skeptical about the health claims. I can tell you that you wouldn't be hungry; nothing sates like fat. I have gone a couple of days where 90%+ of my cals came from fat, and I wasn't hungry at all.


The Eskimos eat all of the animal, not just the fat. And I can tell you that fat doesn't sate me; protein does. And since you suggested that the OP go a couple of *months* eating nothing but fat, your experiment of a couple of days is not a valid comparison. The body cannot convert fat into protein efficiently enough to supply enough amino acids for structural needs, and the lack of carbohydrates (there are some in meat) can cause also cause structural problems, because glycosated proteins form mucus and mucus membranes.

[JoanD'Arc]

I get what both of you are saying, but I am with Jordan on this.

The OP keeps referring to calories as a good measure of the 'net energy' of his overall food intake. It's actually just a tool to keep overall quantity down. Wisely, he's using other tools as well, so as to divide the calories properly among fats, proteins, and carbs. This can similarly be done with scales to weigh the food, but calorie counting is preferred since erroneous caloric measures are printed everywhere for our convenience.

Jordan, on the other hand, is trying to point out that calories are NOT a measure of net energy at all. This is the tricky part because everyone tends to believe that calories must be real because there was a scientific experiment to prove it. There wasn't. The scientific experiment proved that you could heat water with a match and a peanut for longer than with a match and lettuce. Therefore they gave the peanut a bigger number. Similarly, you could get a steam engine to move by heating water with coal. Therefore coal is fattening.

There is no correlation and there is no such thing as a calorie. It is not a tangible physical property at all. It's not a thing, it's an idea. It is only a measurement, like the 'degree'. On a hot day we measure the air temperature, but there are no degrees floating around outside. There are no calories. It's just a measurement that has to do with heating water by literally burning food. We don't burn food, even though we like to use the word 'burn'. We only warm food to 98.6 degrees F. Copper has a high caloric measurement, but we know that not one calorie is utilized when one swallows a penny.

So, what about the people who are successfully maintaining or even losing weight by calorie counting? They are simply using it as a method of watching their total intake, congratulations to them for their success. Unfortunately, it does support a misleading system that makes fat the bad guy.

Jordan, someday someone credible will come out with the breaking news that the calorimeter is an archaic and grossly inaccurate method of measuring food energy. That's not me, I guess, I get completely ignored with this information, maybe it will be you. But until then, when reading posts try substituting the word 'calorie' with the word 'quantity.' It helps. :agree:

[Elizellen]

Though this has turned into a really interesting thread I notice that the OP still has not bothered even to log on to see any responses to his question!
Last Activity: Tue, Mar-26-13 22:35

Maybe it is for a term paper and he will return when school starts after Easter to use the info!!

[ojoj]

I get what both of you are saying, but I am with Jordan on this.

The OP keeps referring to calories as a good measure of the 'net energy' of his overall food intake. It's actually just a tool to keep overall quantity down. Wisely, he's using other tools as well, so as to divide the calories properly among fats, proteins, and carbs. This can similarly be done with scales to weigh the food, but calorie counting is preferred since erroneous caloric measures are printed everywhere for our convenience.

Jordan, on the other hand, is trying to point out that calories are NOT a measure of net energy at all. This is the tricky part because everyone tends to believe that calories must be real because there was a scientific experiment to prove it. There wasn't. The scientific experiment proved that you could heat water with a match and a peanut for longer than with a match and lettuce. Therefore they gave the peanut a bigger number. Similarly, you could get a steam engine to move by heating water with coal. Therefore coal is fattening.

There is no correlation and there is no such thing as a calorie. It is not a tangible physical property at all. It's not a thing, it's an idea. It is only a measurement, like the 'degree'. On a hot day we measure the air temperature, but there are no degrees floating around outside. There are no calories. It's just a measurement that has to do with heating water by literally burning food. We don't burn food, even though we like to use the word 'burn'. We only warm food to 98.6 degrees F. Copper has a high caloric measurement, but we know that not one calorie is utilized when one swallows a penny.

So, what about the people who are successfully maintaining or even losing weight by calorie counting? They are simply using it as a method of watching their total intake, congratulations to them for their success. Unfortunately, it does support a misleading system that makes fat the bad guy.

Jordan, someday someone credible will come out with the breaking news that the calorimeter is an archaic and grossly inaccurate method of measuring food energy. That's not me, I guess, I get completely ignored with this information, maybe it will be you. But until then, when reading posts try substituting the word 'calorie' with the word 'quantity.' It helps. :agree:

Well said!

Jo xxx

[rwwff]

I don't see how it follows that overall net energy consumed causes fat to be the bad guy, or even more responsible for fat gain. That would imply that people eat a strict volume of food regardless of its composition, and that's just insane.

I *like* carbs a lot. Before I altered my diet composition, a typical breakfast would be 80g of dry oatmeal and 2 cups of water cooked, and adding a lot of fruit cut up into it, sweetened with splenda and topped with cinnamon and nutmeg. This is a truly massive thing to behold when its done, about 150g carbs and I eat again afterwards in 3-4 hrs. Contrast against a LC breakfast, with 4oz of bacon and 4 eggs; 90g of fat and 45g of protein; more total calories as well, but I won't eat again for a good 7-10 hours, despite the volume being MUCH less.

Now maybe this is coincidence or magic, but the calorie counts for the days, always seem to average out about the same, somewhere around 3000kcal total; even when their composition varies wildly.

So, total energy consumed does matter, what doesn't matter is volume. That total energy does matter, does NOT imply that composition is irrelevant; it only highlights an upper bound from which to choose nutrient ratios that provide the desired result.

So within those 3000kcal, if I eat mostly carbs, the volume will be large, my insulin production will max out and be overwhelmed, my bG spikes and A1C start to look more like a diabetic, and the Trig side of my metabolism drives my LDL-P (with lp(a) characteristics) into OMG outlier bad territory.

Whereas if I eat 3000 kcal of mostly fat, I spend a lot of time with my bG idling in comfortable, normal ranges, I have sufficient insulin to handle and distribute the carbs I do eat; that glucose ends up where it's supposed to (glycogen recovery), etc.

Those are two energy equivalent conditions, with VERY different impacts on health, but the difference doesn't imply that the total energy measurement is irrelevant.

[Liz53]

I think the key to the thread is found in the title: Do Calories Matter At All? It's not: Do Calories Matter As Much As Food Composition?

I agree that food composition is probably primary - carbs mess with your blood sugar which drives hunger and you end up eating more food, which can be measured in volume or in calories. Who would be able to know what volume of food they can eat each day without gaining unless they were pretty much able to eat to hunger each and every day or eat the same exact food every single day? Calories is a measure, however imperfect, that allows us to compare apples to oranges. Literally and figuratively. Perhaps what we need is a revamp of how calories are measured for different foods.

I cannot eat to hunger without gaining weight. To keep my weight stable or to lose ever so slowly, I must restrict food, even if I eat low carb (25-40 grams of carbs per day), below my natural hunger level. The most effective way for me to do that is to count calories. I have no illusion that it is an absolutely accurate measure , but it's a good enough estimate for me to make progress and maintain.

[JordanS]

The ONLY thing that matters, is that nutritional requirements are met.

Its amazing to me the precision with which you are measuring your food intake. Im being very serious.

[rwwff]

I weigh everything and enter it into a web based log (livestrong/myplate). I also track the calorie burn on myplate. Most of my exercise is tracked with a recording HR monitor that I can eyeball analyze the resultant plots to get a glucose/lipid metabolism split if I wish.

It is slightly tedious... But its not all THAT hard. Compared to the complications that regaining the weight would cause, its a trivial nuisance.

[ojoj]

I weigh everything and enter it into a web based log (livestrong/myplate). I also track the calorie burn on myplate. Most of my exercise is tracked with a recording HR monitor that I can eyeball analyze the resultant plots to get a glucose/lipid metabolism split if I wish.

It is slightly tedious... But its not all THAT hard. Compared to the complications that regaining the weight would cause, its a trivial nuisance.

Each to his own, I'm too lazy, or maybe too busy to do all that. I never weigh or measure anything. I simply dont eat anything with more than 5gms to 100gms of carbs. Some days I eat absolutely loads, some days I just graze and other days I'll just have one meal mid afternoon. It depends how I feel and what I'm doing!

jo xxx

[ShelyBelly]

One of the things that Taubes says in his book is to eat when you are hungry and stop when you are full/satisfied, but stop before you are stuffed. Eating this way helps the food not become an obsession, and helps you naturally know how much to eat. Interestingly, some days I 'need' a lot less food than other days where I seem more hungry... this way of eating helps you learn to listen to your body, rather than to 'eat as much as I can get away with'' which isn't satisfying, and triggers insulin. Some days I eat 1200 calories, other days much more if I'm ravenous that day.
Also, I read, that too much protein can lead to insulin response, especially with american cheese on it, etc.

[Liz53]

Each to his own, I'm too lazy, or maybe too busy to do all that. I never weigh or measure anything. I simply dont eat anything with more than 5gms to 100gms of carbs. Some days I eat absolutely loads, some days I just graze and other days I'll just have one meal mid afternoon. It depends how I feel and what I'm doing!

jo xxx

You know, I think we all do what we have to do to be successful. When I did South Beach 9 years ago (in my early 50s) I never weighed or measured a thing. The weight fell off till I got to about 147, and then, no matter what, my weight stalled.

Eventually I switched to Atkins (fewer carbs) and a couple more pounds fell off. Now, some 5 years later, in order to lose or maintain, I have to watch calories as well.

I'd love nothing more than to not count anymore. Actually I tried it last year. I ate generally low carb, but ate more to hunger, and perhaps (maybe because I wasn't tracking?) indulged a bit more at times, and by the end of year, I'd put on 14 lbs. By weighing and tracking since mid-January, I've lost 9 of them. I'd love to not count but I get much better results when I do. I suspect Rwwff has found the same thing.

[ojoj]

I suppose I'm lucky, but I think because of the way I now eat, it averages out during the course of a week - some days, I think if I were to count calories, I probably have less than 500, others more than 3000 ???? . Also because I rarely follow the same rules everyday, my body doesnt go into starvation mode!

I lost it quickly 10 years ago, put 20lbs on two years ago - that was because I thought I could control my carb intake - er.... I couldnt and began binge eating on high carb junk. Last September I really reduced my intake and my carbs. I didnt eat til after midday and lost it all again!!!

Jo xxx

[kwikdriver]

Each to his own, I'm too lazy, or maybe too busy to do all that. I never weigh or measure anything. I simply dont eat anything with more than 5gms to 100gms of carbs. Some days I eat absolutely loads, some days I just graze and other days I'll just have one meal mid afternoon. It depends how I feel and what I'm doing!

jo xxx

Count yourself blessed. If I don't keep some kind of track of what I eat, I overeat, doesn't matter what kind of diet I'm following. I suspect there are more people like me than not. Low carbing helps keep things under control to an extent, but only to an extent.

[Liz53]

I suppose I'm lucky, but I think because of the way I now eat, it averages out during the course of a week - some days, I think if I were to count calories, I probably have less than 500, others more than 3000 ???? . Also because I rarely follow the same rules everyday, my body doesnt go into starvation mode!

Except for the fact that I now find it necessary to track and you don't, our experience seems pretty similar. I also vary my intake according to hunger, but I don't have as wide a swing as you. I go as low as 1350 and as high as 1800 or 2000, and average 1500-1650. For my age, height and activity level, I think I'm able to eat quite a bit. I can't say that I really ever binged on high carb foods when I was not tracking, it was more of a steady drip drip drip of 10-20 extra grams per day, a glass or two of wine, another handful of almonds, and that was enough to put on the weight for me.

It's really dangerous, though (I think) to assume what works for me will necessarily work for you or anyone else. Even Gary Taubes complains about the Everything in Moderation folks who think that if everyone would just eat like they do, none of us would have weight problems. Yeah, right.....

[JordanS]

I eat lots of fat. Cream in coffee, veggies cooked in butter, bacon, eggs cooked in lard, coconut milk and cinnamon shakes, cream cheese off the spoon, etc.

I "cheat" with dark chocolate and peanut butter. Or whipped heavy cream with a cup of frozen berries.

The protein and carbs come along for the ride.

Sometimes I eat 1meal a day. Sometimes I have like 5 meals.

I do heavy weight training 2-3x per week. Sometimes less.

I sleep 9 hours a night, walk the dogs in the morning, and play with my daughter every chance I get.

I lost 40+lbs eating lots of fat and "calories".

I dont have the urge or need to stress about this stuff.

[Liz53]

I eat lots of fat. Cream in coffee, veggies cooked in butter, bacon, eggs cooked in lard, coconut milk and cinnamon shakes, cream cheese off the spoon, etc.

I "cheat" with dark chocolate and peanut butter. Or whipped heavy cream with a cup of frozen berries.

The protein and carbs come along for the ride.

Sometimes I eat 1meal a day. Sometimes I have like 5 meals.

I do heavy weight training 2-3x per week. Sometimes less.

I sleep 9 hours a night, walk the dogs in the morning, and play with my daughter every chance I get.

I lost 40+lbs eating lots of fat and "calories".

I dont have the urge or need to stress about this stuff.

I'm really glad you found what works for you. May we all find our own best way.

[LilyB]

I eat lots of fat. Cream in coffee, veggies cooked in butter, bacon, eggs cooked in lard, coconut milk and cinnamon shakes, cream cheese off the spoon, etc.

I "cheat" with dark chocolate and peanut butter. Or whipped heavy cream with a cup of frozen berries.

The protein and carbs come along for the ride.

Sometimes I eat 1meal a day. Sometimes I have like 5 meals.

I do heavy weight training 2-3x per week. Sometimes less.

I sleep 9 hours a night, walk the dogs in the morning, and play with my daughter every chance I get.

I lost 40+lbs eating lots of fat and "calories".

I dont have the urge or need to stress about this stuff.
At your age, I was a size 3.
That was in the late 80's today's size 00.
I was active, ran, lifted, skated, etc...
and was just under 10% body fat.

In 25 years, I hope you are still as awesomely successful.
Then again, you might look a bit more like some of us who are a little fluffy.

[ojoj]

Count yourself blessed. If I don't keep some kind of track of what I eat, I overeat, doesn't matter what kind of diet I'm following. I suspect there are more people like me than not. Low carbing helps keep things under control to an extent, but only to an extent.


But dont you find that low carbing and being in ketosis stops you eating as much??? Thats why this WOE works for me. There are so many times when I simply forget to eat. I just dont think about food until I get a "shaky" feeling and then remember that I havent eaten all day

Jo xxx

[ojoj]

I eat lots of fat. Cream in coffee, veggies cooked in butter, bacon, eggs cooked in lard, coconut milk and cinnamon shakes, cream cheese off the spoon, etc.

I "cheat" with dark chocolate and peanut butter. Or whipped heavy cream with a cup of frozen berries.

The protein and carbs come along for the ride.

Sometimes I eat 1meal a day. Sometimes I have like 5 meals.

I do heavy weight training 2-3x per week. Sometimes less.

I sleep 9 hours a night, walk the dogs in the morning, and play with my daughter every chance I get.

I lost 40+lbs eating lots of fat and "calories".

I dont have the urge or need to stress about this stuff.

:agree:

You are me lol - apart from the weight training. I dont "do" exercise!!!!!

Jo xxx

[zmktwzrd]

Hi All,

Original poster here! I just logged in to view all your responses (after an email prompt, nice feature!)

Let me first say THANK YOU to everyone that responded. You have thoroughly answered my question and provided insight and resources far beyond what I ever expected!

I am not a “plant”, I've been low carb dieting off and on since 1998. To be honest, my biggest reason for posting was to get ideas for my “sales pitch” or “presentation” to my wife! I love her, but she gives the phrase “stubborn, old school type” new meaning! A lovely evening together can easily turn into a near divorce event when this topic comes up! She has a master’s degree in nursing and is a victim of brainwash who believes that the American Heart Association knows what’s best.

The problem is our daughter is overweight, and I need every bullet, powerful quote, link, study, perspective, joke, anecdote, technique (whatever) to get “the sale”. The benefit being my daughter loses weight and does not suffer for most of her life as I did from being overweight and miserable.

It has been like pulling teeth to get her (my wife) to accept all of this advice and information because of how counter it is to “conventional wisdom”. (She is a size 0 and has never had the slightest weight problem in her life, so she cannot relate to this battle)

I know it sounds trite, but I do think one of the most crucial things one can do is find something that works “for them”. Even though the science and chemistry of a ketogenic diet is constant, we humans are extraordinarily complex emotional creatures who can fail for a myriad of reasons. For example, I like counting calories and wearing the “body media” device because it gives me a greater sense of accountability as well as keeping me organized and conscious of EVERYTHING I am doing. I find I tend to plan and shop better when in this mode. I am also a “techie” who enjoys plugging my monitoring device into my computer and seeing all the charts and graphs of “me”! Even if the actual calorie count is meaningless, the ACT of monitoring and tracking gives me a sense of accountability that I seem to thrive on. My point is simply that if you find, for example, that walking backwards in pink pajamas during a full moon tends to help you stick to your low carb diet then DO IT! (As long as you understand that the ritual is helping you stick to the science, and not the science itself.) Sometimes things we do are just rituals that are effective for reasons other than we initially realize (correlation does not imply causation).

Once again, thank you. I have added this site to my “must read” list, so I look forward to future discussions! :)

[kwikdriver]

But dont you find that low carbing and being in ketosis stops you eating as much??? Thats why this WOE works for me. There are so many times when I simply forget to eat. I just dont think about food until I get a "shaky" feeling and then remember that I havent eaten all day

Jo xxx

Sure, but it isn't a panacea. To lose, I still have to be mindful of what I eat. I've lost around 200 pounds doing this, but as soon as I quit calorie counting I regained about 50 pounds of it, even though I was still low carbing (and no, there was no "carb creep," as I ate the same things, just more of it).

[ojoj]

Sure, but it isn't a panacea. To lose, I still have to be mindful of what I eat. I've lost around 200 pounds doing this, but as soon as I quit calorie counting I regained about 50 pounds of it, even though I was still low carbing (and no, there was no "carb creep," as I ate the same things, just more of it).

I'm lucky I guess. I'm now maintaining and for example (and until I read this, it hadnt crossed my mind) All I've eaten today is a small, low carb beefburger with a slice of cheese, half a tomato and a two thin slices of cucumber (probably no more than ten mouthfuls). Its now 6pm locally and I wont eat again today - I'm just not hungry. Maybe, its not so much the carb creep, but increasing quantities and that can spiral to larger and more frequent feeds lol??

Jo xxx

[Liz53]

Jo, I do think you are lucky. The power of hunger cannot be overestimated - it is the body's signal to us to eat! Like you, I lost my appetite the first month or two of Atkins, a by-product of ketosis, I suppose. However, in time, my hunger re-emerged. Years later, I'm still hungry ~12 hours of the day. I always eat a good breakfast, and do not eat lunch till I AM hungry, 5-6 hours later. I'm always hungry before dinner, and while I eat till I'm just about full (not stuffed) I'm usually hungry again after dinner. It's then that I restrict food. I do not eat after dinner, go to bed hungry and wake up hungry, ready for breakfast. It's not a real hardship, but if I were to eat after dinner, when I am most hungry, I would definitely be unable to lose weight and would probably gain. From observing what I eat when I AM able to lose weight, I know to generally cut off the food somewhere around 1650 calories per day (sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less).

[M Levac]

I am not a “plant”, I've been low carb dieting off and on since 1998. To be honest, my biggest reason for posting was to get ideas for my “sales pitch” or “presentation” to my wife! I love her, but she gives the phrase “stubborn, old school type” new meaning! A lovely evening together can easily turn into a near divorce event when this topic comes up! She has a master’s degree in nursing and is a victim of brainwash who believes that the American Heart Association knows what’s best.

The problem is our daughter is overweight, and I need every bullet, powerful quote, link, study, perspective, joke, anecdote, technique (whatever) to get “the sale”. The benefit being my daughter loses weight and does not suffer for most of her life as I did from being overweight and miserable.
Now I understand your situation. I think you don't need theoretical arguments. I think you don't have time for that anyway, with your family and all. You need pragmatic solutions. Stuff you can do, things you can change, things like that. Theory is fine and all but it won't work if nobody listens. So, go straight to food. Can't argue with food. Recipes, low-carb books, instructions, that will help you a whole lot more than fleeting ideas. And with that said, just in time for this discussion, there's this new low-carb book out that's just 24 pages long, written by Dr Westman: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=451661 Check out the video while you're at it.

I didn't read it myself, but Dr Westman also co-wrote the new Atkins book so he must know what he's talking about. Then peruse the recipe section of this forum: http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2 There's thousands. You want to make a low-carb version of spaghetti, chilli, pizza for dinner tonight? You'll find it there. Check out Karen's Corner. She's the forum founder by the way. Spend more time cooking, less time arguing.

If you still want to learn more about the science of low-carb, or just want a bit of ammo for your discussions, check back every so often in the LC Research/Media sub-forum: http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4 You say your wife believes blindly in what the AHA says? I think you'll find we discuss those official organizations quite often, usually to refute everything they say, hehe.

[ojoj]

Jo, I do think you are lucky. The power of hunger cannot be overestimated - it is the body's signal to us to eat! Like you, I lost my appetite the first month or two of Atkins, a by-product of ketosis, I suppose. However, in time, my hunger re-emerged. Years later, I'm still hungry ~12 hours of the day. I always eat a good breakfast, and do not eat lunch till I AM hungry, 5-6 hours later. I'm always hungry before dinner, and while I eat till I'm just about full (not stuffed) I'm usually hungry again after dinner. It's then that I restrict food. I do not eat after dinner, go to bed hungry and wake up hungry, ready for breakfast. It's not a real hardship, but if I were to eat after dinner, when I am most hungry, I would definitely be unable to lose weight and would probably gain. From observing what I eat when I AM able to lose weight, I know to generally cut off the food somewhere around 1650 calories per day (sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less).

Heres another phenomena I came across when I started to slip back onto high carb foods. I could have a big cream cake and 2 bars of chocolate in a day - all approx 250 calories. Thats all I'd eat, because I thought if I eat carbs then I'll balance that with fewer calories. Two things, 1. I'd be climbing the walls with hunger, 2. I'd put on weight eventho my calorific intake was only 750 a day! Of course the "hunger (AKA cravings) I felt meant that eating like that was unsustainable and I ate more and more until I had to get a grip!

Now I'm back on track I must say that on the rare occasions when I have breakfast, I am "hungry" for the whole day regardless of the carb intake of said breakfast! I'm not sure its hunger tho - its more of a craving. Also if I eat a big meal late at night, I'm wanting a breakfast. So for me it seems the more I eat, the more I want and vice versa
Jo xxxx

[JordanS]

Gary Taubes suggestion for a great dietary experiment is the ultimate challenge.

Eat a hyper-caloric diet.

3500 cal per day. Eat nothing but starch or sugar for 1month.

Then, go one month eating the same caloric intake of 3500 cal per day of nothing but fat, again for one month.

What will happen?

[rwwff]

It'll depend on if and how active they are, and the nature of the activity. Basically whether they can burn enough glycogen to have space for the excess glucose spikes to mitigate the damage.

The pure carb diet would be brutal for a sedentary person, that's for sure.

Eating close to that, I went from 200 to 250 as soon as I stopped exercising. On LC, I feel I could stop exercising if I wanted and comfortably match Ein to Eout and not regain the weight.

[Liz53]

Gary Taubes suggestion for a great dietary experiment is the ultimate challenge.

Eat a hyper-caloric diet.

3500 cal per day. Eat nothing but starch or sugar for 1month.

Then, go one month eating the same caloric intake of 3500 cal per day of nothing but fat, again for one month.

What will happen?

I read about a guy who did the high fat part of that around the time I was reading GCBC the first time (fall 2008). He did not gain nor lose weight as I recall, guzzling cream and eating butter by the stick.

Interesting experiments, but does anyone really want to live that way? I don't. I'm more interested in finding what works for me, somewhere between those polar opposites.

Having looked at your blog, I'm going to suggest that weight loss is totally different for men in their 20s/30s and women in their 50s/60s. There's no way for you to know what age does to one's metabolism until you get there. And, yes, in theory, you work to maintain your muscle mass, but in reality, as your hormones change/dwindle, your body composition changes. This is real life.

[M Levac]

Gary Taubes suggestion for a great dietary experiment is the ultimate challenge.

Eat a hyper-caloric diet.

3500 cal per day. Eat nothing but starch or sugar for 1month.

Then, go one month eating the same caloric intake of 3500 cal per day of nothing but fat, again for one month.

What will happen?
Taubes also suggested a thought-experiment in one of his blog posts. It's two identical twins, identical isocaloric 3,000 kcals diets, 300 kcals get switched to either sucrose or glucose, for 20 years. Basically, it's the same problem. What will happen to the identical twins after 20 years of isocaloric diets but with one small difference in the fructose/glucose intake? We discussed a similar experiment in the LC Research/Media sub-forum a while ago where they compared three diets with various carb content. I can't find the post, but I believe this is the study we discussed: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

Whether it's just 300 kcals or 3,500, the problem is the same, and the answer appears to be consistent and dose-dependent. In the study above, they tested REE/TEE, and found a difference according to carb intake. This is just the Eout aspect of energy balance, but it should tell us that there is more to it than just total calories in and out. This experiment allows us to predict what's going to happen if we change carb content but keep total calories the same. It may not predict with accuracy how much weight will be gained or lost, but it predicts whether weight will be gained or lost.

[M Levac]

I read about a guy who did the high fat part of that around the time I was reading GCBC the first time (fall 2008). He did not gain nor lose weight as I recall, guzzling cream and eating butter by the stick.

Interesting experiments, but does anyone really want to live that way? I don't. I'm more interested in finding what works for me, somewhere between those polar opposites.

Having looked at your blog, I'm going to suggest that weight loss is totally different for men in their 20s/30s and women in their 50s/60s. There's no way for you to know what age does to one's metabolism until you get there. And, yes, in theory, you work to maintain your muscle mass, but in reality, as your hormones change/dwindle, your body composition changes. This is real life.
Yep, that's Jeff, a forum member here. He posted his experiment on the Magic School Bus forum, but I can't seem to find it any more. The Ein-Eout hypothesis predicts he should have gained weight, but in fact he lost about 1lbs over that month-long experiment. Sure, it's just n=1, but the hypothesis says it shouldn't even happen to n=1, because it's based on a Law of physics, which can't be broken.

[rwwff]

The law WASN'T broken; what was broken was people's understanding of it. Neither Ein *NOR* Eout are constant; and they effect each other pretty profoundly.

The right way to think about this, if you want to use the law for something worthwhile, is that you can calculate true Eout if you know Ein and fat mass loss, both of which are comparatively easy to measure.

Problem comes in when you add the word "accuracy"; even profession food counting and weighing OCD, card carrying nutritionists have as much as 20% error in their calculation of Ein. If the weight loss is small, it gets buried in the error bar. Only large weight changes allow you to escape that error.

[Liz53]

Yep, that's Jeff, a forum member here. He posted his experiment on the Magic School Bus forum, but I can't seem to find it any more. The Ein-Eout hypothesis predicts he should have gained weight, but in fact he lost about 1lbs over that month-long experiment. Sure, it's just n=1, but the hypothesis says it shouldn't even happen to n=1, because it's based on a Law of physics, which can't be broken.

I'm glad someone else remembers that. It was fascinating to follow. I too have tried searching for it, but to no avail. I wish it were archived here.