A Calorie is a Calorie? Not Exactly.

[Eagle]

Here's one of the first studies that helps illustrate that not all calories are creaeted equal. Just posting this for those that have interest, and those that remember some of the back and forth we had on the "diet" thread a while ago.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-06-27/calories-low-carb-weight-loss/55843134/1

 

[Curtis C]

Interesting article. I think one of the main points in the Diet thread is long term lifestyle change. The linked article mentions that the Low Carb diet would be very hard to continue for most of us and notes that the Low Glycemic diet would be better in the long term

C

 

[Eagle]

I can understand that, but the eye opening aspect of the study, is that the low carb diet caused a 300 cal per day (30 lbs in a year) deficit in a day when compared to the low fat diet, and they were identical calorie wise.

 

[robby denning]

Good thread Eagle.

On the article

Positives:
1) Many of the researchers mentioned were those I referenced in the Diet Thread (NIH, Obestiy Prevention Research Center)
2) Pointed out risk factors for heart disease may increase with low-cab diets
3) Pointed out how lower glycemic indexes might be best trade off and is really what was advocated in the Diet Thread
4) Gave the counter arguments against low carb and the pro of it too, so pretty balanced

Negatives
1) Small study (21 people)


If indeed the 1st Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply here as Taubes and Atkins have stated, then more research will confirm that. If not, this research will fade as it has before. Either way is fine with me, as the truth is really the most important thing.

That is the great thing about research is that if done correctly, it is a living breathing changing thing that we learn from. In other words, it's almost never finished.

Thanks for sharing the article.

 

[Lukem]

It would be interesting to see what the confidence intervals are around those calorie estimates given each group only had (assuming) 7 members. If upping the sample size isn't an option, they should swap diets on the groups and see if they get the same results. Too much potential for an individual effect. Unless I'm understanding the study methods correctly.

Could somebody explain why low-carb diets burn more calories? Is it actual burning of calories or difference in uptake in energy by the body or something entirely different. The title is a little misleading (or confusing). A difference in uptake would make sense to me, at least on an experience level... meat goes through me fast, carbs, not so much, which might allow for different rates of calorie absorption. Although the difference in GI tracts between herbivores and carnivores runs contrary to that absorption theory.

 

[Broken Arrow]

If I'm correct? Generally a low carb diet ends up being a high protein diet and you burn fat to process protein in addition less carbs mean your body burns more slow burning calories ie fat/ protein. Think carbs quick and protein fat slow in burn rate. That's why runners eat a ton of carbs before a race. IMO a ratio depends on your activity level. If you have an office job complex carbs protein and fat if you are a construction worker etc. a little more carbs in the diet. IMO higher carb than fat and protein in the morning balance of the 3 for lunch and protein for dinner. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[dcestnik]

Sample size is way too small to prove anything. An an anecdote however, tracking calories on fitday.com and being on a low carb diet made it hard to overeat.