Originally posted by rwfresh
You didn't read it did you? haha.
Statistical accuracy of ~95%. So overweight people should be more concerned with this than calorie reduction?
Here. Let me help you:
The results of our study challenge the notion that a calorie is a calorie from a metabolic perspective. During isocaloric feeding following weight
loss, REE was 67 kcal/d higher with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the low-fat diet. TEE differed by approximately 300 kcal/d between
these 2 diets, an effect corresponding with the amount of energy typically expended in 1 hour of moderate-intensity physical activity.
Neither total physical activity nor time spent in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity differed among the diets.
300 kcal difference in TEE. Total energy expended is the key here. You can't simply focus on REE. If you're going to use the energy balance
equation, you have to consider all energy in - out.
Long or short term. Meaning, if you are fat focus on eating less. Not eating the same measured caloric amount with different macro nutrient
ratios. That is delusional and stupid.
Except for the fact that, according to the results above (and numerous other studies), isocaloric feeding in a group with varying macronutrient ratios
yielded very different results. So different, in fact, that if carried out to 6 months of caloric restriction, the observed difference in weight-loss
would theoretically be 21lbs to 6lbs respectively. 1 year? 42lbs lost compared to 12lbs respectively.
We'll know more later... Lustig is currently working on designing a follow-up study that will measure the same effects long-term.
Friend It's like citing a study that demonstrates that water is wet. You are not making ANY sense. Think of what you are saying.
Just find some quality studies, is all. Is it so hard to ask? I'm making perfect sense. Negative energy balance equals weight loss and vice versa.
But if you want to continue denying real facts... you're an idiot. The thermic effect of feeding is a great example of a calorie is not a calorie.
Eating one gram of protein versus one gram of carbohydrate will net a different energy (ATP) cost/availability, because of the thermic effect that
The chart from which you so gladly quoted is a prime example of what I've been talking about. Decreasing energy in leads compensatory changes that
decrease energy out:
Pre-Weight Loss Baseline (all groups): REE 1781 ; TEE 3234
All groups following the weight loss period showed a decrease in energy expenditure. This, on it's own, regardless of amount, is an indicator that
simply reducing calories will influence how much energy one expends. This indicate, clearly, that the energy-in/energy-out equation is one that does
not hold true to the concept as if it were including independent variables. Since energy-in and out are dependent
variables, you can no longer
assume that if you simply eat less calories... you will lose weight. Eating 50 calories less per day (energy in) will result in compensatory changes
which will indeed affect energy expenditure (energy out).
Furthermore, different macronutrient compositions, as shown in the above link, yield varying degrees of compensatory changes, metabolic advantages as
some have coined them.
Low-Fat: REE 1576 ; TEE 2812
Low Glycemic: REE 1614 ; TEE 2937
Very Low Carb: REE 1643 ; TEE 3137
Consuming the same amount of calories, the Very Low-carb group expended 325 calories more the Low-fat group.
So, is it energy in - out? Sure. But it's not a simple... OH...ya gotta eat less to lose weight.
And I remember you saying caloric restriction is the safest way to lose weight. I mean, you're kidding right? Did you misread the chart?
Macronutrient composition also manifested in different health measures:
Insulin sensitivity was increased greater in the Very low-carb group compared to the Low-fat group in both the peripheral (whole body) and hepatic
(the liver) measurements. And, in case you didn't know, this alone could account for the difference in resting energy expenditure. HDL cholesterol
measurements were best for the Very Low-carb group. Triglycerides were much lower in the Very Low-carb group.
To take from an analysis of this study: eatingacademy.com...
It never hurts to hammer those findings home again, but the really dramatic finding of the study was the impact of macronutrient balance on REE
and TEE. To our (NuSI) counting, 81 studies over the past 80 years involving 4,094 subjects for more than 1.2 million subject-days have attempted to
ask this question – many of them attempting to “prove” that all calories are created equally. While none (i.e., not one) have refuted the
alternative hypothesis, most of t