|
|
It’s been awhile since I’ve written an article for elitefts™ and I thought I’d continue the series I began: Logic Does Not Apply. Today, it’s time to attack one of my personal favorites, the saying that a calorie is a calorie.
Without analysis, many people find it hard to imagine that you can take two diets identical in calories, differing in macronutrient makeup — say high carb vs. ultra-low carb — and lose more weight with one than the other. Or better yet, gain weight with one and lose weight with the other. A calorie is a calorie right? Energy-in equals energy-out, or maybe there’s some other sciency-phrase that we can pull from our ass to say it’s impossible. Ignorance and hubris combine to cause relatively intelligent people to make really stupid comments.
And stupidity propagates myths because people in the United States, even though we rank almost last in all educational standards, rank first in confidence, making us believe that our opinions double as fact. Who would ever think to say, “I don’t know,” when they actually don’t know? Obviously it’s better to make something up based on hunches, assumptions with a touch of fact sprinkled on top to make it more appetizing. I won’t pretend to be immune. I’ve done it before. It took me a long time to learn to say, “I don’t know,” which turns out to be the most valuable thing I ever learned.
Luckily, though, most of the time I do know, which makes me want to smack people when they say, it’s impossible to manipulate carbs, protein and fat and lose weight without cutting calories. A calorie is a calorie! It’s the first law of thermodynamics. Ha! Take that Mr. Dangerously Hardcore. I said a big sciency-word; I’ve got my big-boy pants on. Try arguing with that.
Okay, let me give you a tip: don’t argue physics with a physicist if you’re not one. It’s painful for everyone involved, most of all, the physicist. Listening to stupidity hurts. True, the first law of thermodynamics does apply, but it only says that the total energy of the system before and after must be the same. It says nothing about the efficiency of the body in converting that food to energy (either energy for work, or to store as fat), nor does it say if more or less of the energy is wasted if the macronutrient breakdown of the diet changes. In other words, the 1st law says nothing about efficiency. Even if the calories are identical, the 1st law cannot tell us whether eating carbs causes the same reactions in the body as eating fat. It really doesn’t say much of anything—except about the ignorance of the person who invoked it as a magical chant.
The Idea
Given two diets identical in calorie count, the two must produce the same weight loss or gain regardless of macronutrient content.
The Logic
By the 1st law of thermodynamics that says energy is neither created or destroyed, must, somehow, say that 100 calories of carbohydrates will produce identical effects as 100 calories of fat — or protein for that matter.
The Reality
The idea that a calorie is a calorie actually violates the laws of physics1-4 and contradicts several well-controlled studies5-14; you can manipulate macronutrients to cause weight-loss even while increasing calories15.
I could go into subjects like Gibb’s free energy, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, triaglycerol synthesis, storage and breakdown, violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy and so on and so forth, and if you’re interested you can check the references, as the subjects are well covered. I am, however going to come from the subject from a simpler point, one that most everyone comprehends and deals with daily: efficiency.
This is where the 2nd law of thermodynamics comes into play. The 1st law may be lame, but the 2nd law allows for the concept of efficiency. At its most basic, efficiency is how much work you can get done based on how much energy is put in. A standard internal combustion engine —l ike the one that runs your car — is roughly 33% efficient, which means that one-third of the energy you put in (the chemical energy stored in the gasoline) does work; the other two-thirds is thrown off as heat.
The body works much the same way. On a standard diet of about 60% carbohydrates, the human body also wastes about two-thirds of the ingested energy as heat. A significant amount is used to help hold our internal temperature steady, but some of the energy is lost in other ways as well. The vast majority of research done on humans and animals dealing with efficiency and wasted heat were done within a narrow range of macronutrient combinations with carbs always leading the way at about 55% of the diet or greater.
But what happens to efficiency when you change the fuel? If you had any sense at all, you’d assume that the efficiency would change—different fuel may burn less or more efficiently in the given engine and increase or decrease fuel mileage. It happens in a car. Add ethanol to gasoline and your fuel economy goes down. Add other hydrocarbons, like anti-knocking agents, and your efficiency goes up.
Nobody even bats an eye during this discussion, instead, they get a no-shit look on their face, or better yet, say it. When I turn the conversation to the human body, all of a sudden it becomes unbelievable. What? Different ratios of fat, protein and carbs can cause different amounts of energy to be wasted in the body? That’s bullshit…a calorie is a calorie.
Sorry big-box trainers and the equivalent ilk: the body obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it does the 1st and therefore varies in efficiency based on activity, hormonal status and—by far the most important factor—the type of fuel we provide. That’s why Atwater, the father of the 4-4-9 calorie values for carbs, protein, and fat, respectively, distinguished between physical fuel values and physiological fuel values16. The first, physical fuel values, is the amount of energy you can get out of food by burning it with oxygen, literally. You throw food in a fancy oven, incinerate then record the total amount of heat released—this is the physical fuel value.
The physiological value is the amount of energy the organism can derive from the fuel, which can be lower or higher. Fat, for example, depending on if the body is in a growth stage can get over 11 calories per gram out of fat17-21. That’s significantly more than the 9 listed on candy bar wrappers. This is a consistent result of measurement. Clearly, even a calorie of fat is not a calorie of fat. If you understand chemistry or statistical mechanics, nothing should seem odd about this. The body may burn fat using one set of enzymes over another—like the difference between aerobic (burning in the presence of oxygen) and anaerobic (burning in the absence of oxygen)—or may upregulate the production of fat burning enzymes to make the whole process more efficient. These two require different enzymes and other molecules. Different or accelerated avenues of metabolization can produce different amounts of energy.
The physical and physiological fuel values don’t match up for protein either. It takes energy to process the food we eat, energy that’s wasted as heat known as the thermic effect of feeding (TEF). When you eat a meal, you warm up. It’s that simple. There’s an extensive amount of research on the subject: about 2% of the ingested calories of fat, 7% of carbs and 30% of protein is wasted as heat whenever you eat22.
Let’s stop for a second. This is well established fact. There’s no disagreement in the scientific community, amongst pop-diet writers, not even among medical professionals. Knowing this, you can calculate the difference in physiological fuel values between two identical diets. If you took a diet that is 60% carbohydrates, swapped it around so that a much larger percentage of the calories came from protein, you could create two different 2000 calorie diets, one that’s high-carb providing 1850 physiological calories (considering all the heat lost) and one that’s low-carb providing about 1700 physiological calories (even more heat loss). By shuffling things around, we cut 150 usable calories per day while still putting 2000 calories into our mouths.
I’m going to say what is hopefully obvious at this point: being inefficient is good if you love food. If you can make your body inefficient, you can eat more and actually lose weight. My different dieting strategies—Carb Nite® and Carb Back-Loading™—both depend on manipulating TEF and other factors to make the body as inefficient as possible at the right times. Take Carb Nite for example: the diet is refined to the point that each time you consume carbs during the specified window of time, your body almost literally cannot store the carbs as fat, and works so hard trying to process them that it releases a ton of heat, you start sweating and the vascularity on your forearms doubles as a satellite map of the Amazon delta. All of these effects depend on enzyme activity and hormone levels, all of which can be manipulated by the food we eat.
A calorie is not a calorie: end of story. The whole argument is essentially one of laziness and ignorance. Our latest dietary iconoclasts accept one set of facts, but refuse to accept another set of facts (yes, it’s a fact that you can make your body more or less efficient, that a calorie is not a calorie, so to speak). A calorie is not a calorie is a direct consequence of the accepted facts. Maybe we’re not taught to think logically anymore, to understand cause-and-effect because truthfully, the conclusion that a calorie is not a calorie could be reached by any four-year-old who’s learned to play connect-the-dots.
1. Feinman RD, Fine EJ. Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and energy efficiency in weight loss diets. Theor Biol Med Model. 2007 Jul 30;4:27. Review.
2. Feinman RD, Fine EJ. Thermodynamics and metabolic advantage of weight loss diets. Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2003 Sep;1(3):209-19.
3. Fine EJ, Feinman RD. Thermodynamics of weight loss diets. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2004 Dec 8;1(1):15.
4. Feinman RD, Fine EJ. Whatever happened to the second law of thermodynamics? Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Nov;80(5):1445-6; author reply 1446.
5. Rabast U, Kasper H, Schonborn J. Comparative studies in obese subjects fed carbohydrate-restricted and high carbohydrate 1,000-calorie formula diets. Nutr Metab 1978, 22:269-77.
6. Rabast U, Hahn A, Reiners C, Ehl M. Thyroid hormone changes in obese subjects during fasting and a very-low-calorie diet. Int J Obes 1981, 5:305-11.
7. Golay A, Eigenheer C, Morel Y, Kujawski P, Lehmann T, de Tonnac N. Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1996, 20:1067-72.
8. Golay A, Allaz AF, Morel Y, de Tonnac N, Tankova S, Reaven G. Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr 1996, 63:174-8.
9. Layman DK, Boileau RA, Erickson DJ, Painter JE, Shiue H, Sather C, Christou DD. A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult women. J Nutr 2003, 133:411-7.
10. Lean ME, Han TS, Prvan T, Richmond PR, Avenell A. Weight loss with high and low carbohydrate 1200 kcal diets in free living women. Eur J Clin Nutr 1997, 51:243-8.
11. Baba NH, Sawaya S, Torbay N, Habbal Z, Azar S, Hashim SA. High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet for the treatment of obese hyperinsulinemic subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1999, 23:1202-6.
12. Young CM, Scanlan SS, Im HS, Lutwak L. Effect of body composition and other parameters in obese young men of carbohydrate level of reduction diet. Am J Clin Nutr 1971, 24:290-6.
13. Greene P, Willett W, Devecis J, Skaf A. Pilot 12-Week Feeding Weight-Loss Comparison: Low-Fat vs Low-Carbohydrate (Ketogenic) Diets. Obesity Research 2003, 11:A23.
14. Riggs AJ, White BD, Gropper SS. Changes in energy expenditure associated with ingestion of high protein, high fat versus high protein, low fat meals among underweight, normal weight, and overweight females. Nutr J. 2007 Nov 12;6:40.
15. Reinus JF, Heymsfield SB, Wiskind R, Casper K, Galambos JT. Ethanol: relative fuel value and metabolic effects in vivo. Metabolism. 1989 Feb;38(2):125-35.
16. Atwater WO, Woods CD. The availability and fuel values of food materials. In Connecticut (Storrs) Agricultural Experiment Station 12th Annual Report (Storrs, CT). 1900; 73-123.
17. Carew LB Jr, Hill FW. Effect of corn oil on metabolic efficiency of energy utilization by chicks. J Nutr. 1964 Aug;83:293-9.
18. Carew LB Jr, Hopkins DT, Nesheim MC. Influence of amount and type of fat on metabolic efficiency of energy utilization by the chick. J Nutr. 1964 Aug;83:300-6.
19. Donato K, Hegsted DM. Efficiency of utilization of various sources of energy for growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985 Aug;82(15):4866-70.
20. Donato KA. Efficiency and utilization of various energy sources for growth. Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 Jan;45(1 Suppl):164-7.
21. Pi-Sunyer FX. Metabolic efficiency of macronutrient utilization in humans. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 1993;33(4-5):359-61. Review.
22. Jequier E. Pathways to obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002, 26 Suppl 2:S12-7. Review.
PDF 
John Kiefer is a nutritional consultant, physique and performance coach, and author of the fat loss guide, The Carb Nite® Solution (
Thanks for another great article Kiefer! Keep ‘em coming.
Awesome stuff once again, this man is a genius.
I’d love your thoughts on this article:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
The article does an excellent job of demonstrating a lack of understanding of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Triaglycerol flux through adipocyte membranes is an excellent example of a kinetic energy effect (taken into account by statistical mechanics) that can have significant impact on wasted energy without effecting thermal losses, and carbs make this process more efficient. In a nutshell, it takes mechanical energy to get fat into fat cells (or out) and carbs (insulin) reduces the energy necessary to do that. For someone with a decent amount of body fat, this can result, easily, in another 100 calories per day worth of “wasted” energy on a low-carb diet.
There are also problems of varying metabolic pathways. A recent meta-analysis (data from carefully chosen, high-quality studies pooled together for analysis) found that even when taking in all the effects listed by Lyle in his article, “diets high in protein and (or) low in carbohydrate produced an approximately equal to 2.5 kg [or] greater weight loss after 12 wks of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure [including the thermic effect of food] could explain these differences in weight loss.” (Buchholz AC, Schoeller DA. Is a calorie a calorie? Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):899S-906S. Review.)
There are other factors as well, such as deaminated amino acids make poor material for ketone or fat production (only leucine and lysine are possibly capable of forming fat in the body), making the excess protein simply, inefficient as an energy source.
And, of course, I didn’t even touch on the changes in entropy and energy requirements needed for assembling complex molecules from simple ones. That fact that Lyle does not mention, touch upon or discuss entropy demonstrates his lack of qualifications to discuss the thermodynamics of a system as complex as the human body.
Most of these effects are far beyond the scope of this article and ignored in Lyle’s. The fact remains, as proven and existing because of an as-of-yet-unknown exact mechanism of inefficiency, that a calorie is not a calorie.
I do find it interesting that Lyle starts his article essentially saying how people who don’t understand thermodynamics shouldn’t talk about it. I agree: leave it to the physicists.
John ~ What a well written, well researched, well though out article and argument. I can’t tell you the number of times I have gotten into this very argument with an individual or client. I was able to get quiet a few more scientific points from your article that will hopefully help others understand this concept. Thanks.
I fail to understand the point you are trying to make.
Clearly, when someone advocates that a calorie is a calorie and that that is all that matters in the end (calories in vs. calories out), they aren’t mentioning the macro-nutrient breakdown that must accompany it in order for this entire “logic” to make sense.
People often, like you in this article in fact, attempt to portray the calorie is a calorie principle with unrealistic extremes that nobody actually follows. That’s the only way there can be an argument against it, and that argument, is built on strawman rationale at best.
When someone follows the principle, they’re not eating mostly carbs or mostly fats or mostly protein to satisfy their daily caloric requirement. What they mean, is that their total macro-nutrient ratio for the day will equal a certain set of calories that is a bit below or above their daily expenditure. That means, they can follow a 40/40/20, a 50/40/10, or whatever breakdown they find best. It doesn’t matter, as long as the two are paired together to work because alone by themselves both obviously don’t. You’re choosing to pick one off on its own and argue against it, when nobody actually uses it in such a way.
Obviously eating 3,000 calories worth of skittles is not efficient for the body to grow. Nobody is claiming that that’s what they’re doing when following . Really great job of missing the point. :)
Very interesting read. Is there a point of too much protein in the diet? I know after a certain point the body turns it to glucose, but where is that point? Thanks!
amazing kiefer, missed yah since you havent been posting much on dh, whens your new version of carbnite coming out?
Great article super informative!!
Holy shit a kiefer article! Just kidding but always an interesting read. Thanks. Keep ‘em coming.
What I find is obvious – as you so effortlessly point out – is different people get different results with the same calorie diet and even the same macronutrient regime. What would cause this? Perhaps it’s varying efficiencies?
Metabolism – a superb topic with endless depth. You are masterful.
Just in case there’s some confusion about the author’s sources, the Schoeller/Buchholz paper he mentions in the comments does support macronutrient-level differences such as TEF, satiety, and water retention, but doesn’t support Feinman/Fine’s ideas on efficiency (which are interesting). To quote Schoeller/Buchholz: “We conclude that a calorie is a calorie.”
You’ll see the S/B paper referenced quite a bit; if you’d like to read it, there’s a full text version available here: http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Here is another term pulled out of the ass, NUTRIGENOMICS! Take that MR. Dangerously Hardcore
Kiefer,
I tried finding the info on your website, but do you do online nutrition programming?
I discuss all of that in all of my articles, Keif. TEF, NEAT, all of the stuff you’re saying I ignore. If you’re going to attack me, try paying attention to the words in my articles and stop with strawment arguments. I’ve never ignored ANYTHING except dummies who can’t argue logically like yourself.
Lyle
From this article
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-fundamentals-of-fat-loss-diets-part-1.html
So try again, Keif.
****
I would mention that changing the macronutrient content of the diet can have a small impact in this regards. For the most part, switching out carbs and fat doesn’t do much despite what many claim. The difference in the thermic effect of food for carbs vs. fat is about 3% so for every 100 calories you switch out one for the other, you might see a 3 calorie difference in energy expenditure.
I’d note that carbs have a the advantage here with a thermic effect of 6% compared to 3% for fat. But the effect tends to be so small as to be irrelevant unless you are looking at whole scale changes to diet. Again, if you replace 100 calories of fat with carbs, you burn 3 more calories per day. If you replace 1000 calories of fat with carbs, you burn 30 calories more per day; you’ll lose an extra pound of fat every 116 days. Whoop de doo.
And while I know someone is going to bring up the issue of gluconeogenesis on ketogenic diets in the comments, I’ll only point out that the impact of this is small and disappears after about 2-3 weeks (when the body shifts to using ketones for fuel). As well, any increase in expenditure from this pathway is balanced against a loss of the thermic effect of carbs.
As well, direct research (by Brehm) shows that there is no difference in resting metabolic rate for ketogenic vs. carb-based diets; the thermic effect of food was higher in the high-carb condition. If there were a true metabolic advantage in terms of energy expenditure for ketogenic diets, someone would have been able to measure it by now. They haven’t and they aren’t going to and all of the theorizing about it doesn’t change the fact that direct research hasn’t supported the concept.
Now, protein has the biggest impact in terms of the thermic effect of food, switching out carbs or fat with protein tends to increase the energy out side of the equation but you have to make pretty large scale changes for it to be particularly significant. I’d note that protein also tends to be the most filling of all the nutrients and studies show that increasing dietary protein intake tends to cause people to eat less calories. Which is another huge confound; if increasing protein makes folks spontaneously eat less, it looks like it was adding the protein per se that did the magic. But it wasn’t, it was the effect of increasing protein on total energy intake that caused the fat loss. Like I said, a subtle confound that people tend to miss a lot.
Last comment, Keif. And unless you look at really extreme diets, all the stuff you’re prattling on about add up to about 3/5ths of jack crap in the real world. Sure, compare 10% protein to 50% protein and it makes a difference from TEF. But all of the other pathways are mostly irrelevant theoretical nonsense, adding up to nothing in the real world. With most realistic diets, any differences from any of this amount to pretty much nothing. Especially not compared to total caloric intake.
I don’t want to take anything away from your main point, because you show quite well that a calorie is not a calorie, but I took issue with your statement “Fat, for example, depending on if the body is in a growth stage can get over 11 calories per gram out of fat17-21.” This is not thermodynamically possible or the conclusion reached by the papers you referenced.
If I take 1g of fat and combine it with just enough oxygen to burn it to CO2+H20, I get 9kcal. That represents the difference in energy between those two states. That should represent the maximum possible energy I can get out of 1g of fat. I agree that you can manipulate your body to be less efficient, but you can’t make it more than 100% efficient…The only way to increase the amount of energy in “fat” would be to use particular fatty acids that contained more energy per gram, but this has nothing to do with your body’s utilization of those fats (I don’t even know if these fats could exist). Also, calorimetry of these hypothetical fats would yield 10-11 kcal/g, which would again mean that is the maximum energy you could derive from them.
Reference 17 even states in the discussion that the metabolizable energy, as measured by their lab, is 8.8kcal/g from corn oil. The increase in fat in the diet of the chicks does not change the number of calories yielded from the oil, it changes the overall metabolic efficiency of the diet. That is where they calculate the “apparent value” for corn oil as anywhere between 9.4 and 12.1kcal/g. They don’t really offer an explanation for why the fat changes the metabolic efficiency of the chick, but they do state in the introduction that it has nothing to do with the energy derived from the fat: ” Hopkins and Nesheim (7) concluded that the growth-promoting activity of soybean oil is due to specific components of the oil rather than its energy contribution” (they assume this for the corn oil they use as well). The linked to in the comments: http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/5/899S.full (from Brandon) also makes the point “He did, however, conclude that the heat of combustion of protein in a bomb calorimeter is higher than the energy value available to the host because the body oxidizes protein only to urea, creatinine, uric acid, and other nitrogenous end products, which can themselves be further oxidized in a bomb calorimeter.” Again emphasizing that the calories on the label represent the maximum possible energy utilization.
Keifer has rode the coattails of every other low carb advocate, but coupled it with scientifical jingoism and the ability to relate with meatheads.
That’s his secret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrigenomics
If there is such a huge metabolic advantage, why can’t studies seem to measure it, Keif? Because it’s immeasurable with current technology, it’s clearly 100% irrelevant in the real world. Hell, the carb based diet had the higher TEF here.
***
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Mar;90(3):1475-82. Epub 2004 Dec 14.
The role of energy expenditure in the differential weight loss in obese women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets.
Brehm BJ, Spang SE, Lattin BL, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D’Alessio DA.
Source
R.D., University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210038, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038, USA. bonnie.brehm@uc.edu
Abstract
We have recently reported that obese women randomized to a low-carbohydrate diet lost more than twice as much weight as those following a low-fat diet over 6 months. The difference in weight loss was not explained by differences in energy intake because women on the two diets reported similar daily energy consumption. We hypothesized that chronic ingestion of a low-carbohydrate diet increases energy expenditure relative to a low-fat diet and that this accounts for the differential weight loss. To study this question, 50 healthy, moderately obese (body mass index, 33.2 +/- 0.28 kg/m(2)) women were randomized to 4 months of an ad libitum low-carbohydrate diet or an energy-restricted, low-fat diet. Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect calorimetry at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months. Physical activity was estimated by pedometers. The thermic effect of food (TEF) in response to low-fat and low-carbohydrate breakfasts was assessed over 5 h in a subset of subjects. Forty women completed the trial. The low-carbohydrate group lost more weight (9.79 +/- 0.71 vs. 6.14 +/- 0.91 kg; P < 0.05) and more body fat (6.20 +/- 0.67 vs. 3.23 +/- 0.67 kg; P < 0.05) than the low-fat group. There were no differences in energy intake between the diet groups as reported on 3-d food records at the conclusion of the study (1422 +/- 73 vs. 1530 +/- 102 kcal; 5954 +/- 306 vs. 6406 +/- 427 kJ). Mean REE in the two groups was comparable at baseline, decreased with weight loss, and did not differ at 2 or 4 months. The low-fat meal caused a greater 5-h increase in TEF than did the low-carbohydrate meal (53 +/- 9 vs. 31 +/- 5 kcal; 222 +/- 38 vs. 130 +/- 21 kJ; P = 0.017). Estimates of physical activity were stable in the dieters during the study and did not differ between groups. These results confirm that short-term weight loss is greater in obese women on a low-carbohydrate diet than in those on a low-fat diet even when reported food intake is similar. The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in REE, TEF, or physical activity and likely reflects underreporting of food consumption by the low-fat dieters.
Mr. Kiefer,
This was an excellent demolition of a straw man. In years of reading bodybuilding/weightlifting nutrition gurus, I’ve never come across someone who thinks that 3,000 calories of cotton candy is equivalent to 3,000 calories of steak and chicken. Not one. The people who say “a calorie is a calorie” mean it in the sense that, given adequate/high protein intake, which everybody agrees is most important, adding brown rice and olive oil isn’t going to give you drastically different results than adding a plate of french fries. You seem to be saying this as well, as your “wasted energy” rebuttal involves a mere 100 extra calories burned per day. The people you believe you’re attacking in this article most likely agree with you.
It’s pretty hilarious that you accuse Lyle, who starts all of his diet advice with high protein intake, and in the case of his more extreme diets, advocates eating almost 100% of calories from protein, with advocating a high carb, low protein diet. But I guess that you’re automatically correct because you dress up typical gym wisdom with fancy words and have a degree in a tangentially related discipline.
@Kris:
As you state succinctly in your opening, you miss the point. What you think people mean when they discuss the concept that “a calorie is a calorie”–that they only mean that they’re going to eat less food, no matter the breakdown, until they begin to lose weight–is not what people mean at all. Maybe in a big-box gym the conversation about calories centers on such inanities, but in the scientific community, it is a technical question debated (for no good reason) and one that applies specifically to the alterations of percentages of dietary macronutrients. To at least understand the argument here–which, by your own admittance, you do not–please follow the link in Brandon Patterson’s comment. It might help.
Your argument that no one in the real world actually changes their macronutrient profile intentionally for weight loss is patently false. My diets Carb Nite and Carb Back-Loading are two such examples as are Atkins, The Zone, The Anabolic Diet, The Pritikin Prescription and so on.
What this article addresses is that one cannot use the equation Calories In = Calories Out + Lost Weight in the simplistic form so often recommended. Too many variables, such as efficiency and macronutrient composition of the diet, come into play making the basic arithmetic of the equation untenable without access to an expensive indirect calorimeter–and even then may not be accurate.
Nowhere in the article do I claim that weight loss can be achieved without an energy deficit. The point is how we can achieve an energy deficit when, on paper, it might appear as though we have not. We can do this by playing with the macronutrient content we eat. I also never said anything about a diet entirely of a single nutrient, like your skittles example.
Thank you for warning us before your response that you don’t understand what the article is addressing.
@Brandon Patterson:
Thank you for providing the link. They were the first to fully frame the calorie argument in the context of the first law of thermodynamics in that paper. Their conclusion belies a beautiful analysis, even if the analysis is incomplete and misses important physics. It’s interesting to note that they perform some “hand-waving” to make the conclusion that “a calorie is a calorie”. Essentially, they express it as a tautology, like “a car is a car”, something that is semantically true by definition.
It’s a shame really, because after concluding “a calorie is a calorie” they go on to make the exact argument presented here that a calorie is not a calorie based on the complexities of metabolic efficiency.
So I agree, a calorie is a calorie (which is merely a measurement of energy), a dog is a dog and a poor conclusion is a poor conclusion.
@ brandon.
Approximately 1-1.3g of protein per pound of body weight daily after the 30% loss from TEF is the point where your body will begin to convert protein to glucose through gluconeogenesis if I’m not mistaken.
Have a read here:
http://dangerouslyhardcore.com/253/protein-super-dosing-performance-enhancing-or-gastric-nightmare/
@Lyle:
I think thou dost protest too much. You provide excellent but limited references and you do not discuss in your article entropy, nor the potential for kinetic effects which can and do exist. These difference in weight loss have been measured and, as of yet, not all mechanism have been discovered or explained. That doesn’t mean you can present one paper measuring one meal and wave your hands and say, “ha, in this time scale the difference was too small to measure, therefore, on any time scale, there must be no difference.” This is very poor logic at best. You do, I concede give a good description of the basics that fall within the first law. The problem is the existence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
If we want to boil this down to base semantics (which is not the point here) then fine, yes, we must be able to account for ALL energy losses and transformations, including those related to kinetic effects of nutrient flux and changes in entropy of the system, (which, even in the world of physics is difficult to “define”). The point here is as I stated above in my response to Kris, we must acknowledge the fact that we can, at will, change the efficiency of the body with macronutrient composition. If you disagree with this, please provide your evidence that defies this basic law of physics.
And yes, I never said that you couldn’t use carbs in a specific way to increase thermodynamic inefficiency. This is a well known fact. As a matter of fact, I use it in Carb Nite as does every “cheat meal” type diet.
Thanks for contributing Lyle.
@Jake:
I did not try to equate thermal losses to each of the effects. I only present evidence that efficiency can be driven–up or down–by changing conditions in the body. Fat may very well not metabolize to 11 or more calories per gram directly, but may initiate the increased efficiency of other processes, just as, for example, insulin can increase the efficiency of kinetic transfer of nutrients through cellular membranes, hence “increasing” the energy of the organism, despite the fact that carbs only directly liberated 4 calories per gram. It would appear (if we burned the carcass of the organism involved in a bomb calorimeter) that carbs release more than 4 calories per gram because they increased the efficiency of a different process if we were to study a no-carb diet, then add carbs into the mix. We, however, always study the other direction, which is the removal of carbs.
I appreciate the detailed response and that you took the time to look through the papers.
@Dirk:
Thanks! I take that as a compliment that I’m able to understand and elucidate the research to everyone from intellectuals to “meatheads” as you say.
But you are mistaken: Carb Back-Loading is not based on anyone else’s findings or protocols but my own and is by no stretch of the imagination low carb.
@Kiefer: Glad to help, and apologies for not addressing you directly while I provided the backstory on the study–the snub was owed to morning fog, not intentional rudeness. My concern was only preventing a reader from believing that the paper treated the noted weight loss like an unsolved mystery, or preventing someone familiar with the work from thinking that you were misapplying it. I’m sure you agree that full-disclosure on sources and their viewpoints is important in keeping web discussions honest, on-track, and ruly.
@Brandon Patterson:
Like I said, I appreciate the link and the disclosure.
So I’m clear. You criticized my article on Is a Calorie a calorie when it’s absolutely clear you didn’t read word one of it. And then you dismissed my comments, clearly without reading word one of them. And you call yourself a scientist.
Dear Mr Sutherland,
Why you talk entropy, but provide no valid basis for its discussion in human metabolism.
But please the continue for impressing rubes. Very nice.
I know this does not have a lot to do with the article, but I wanted to give Kiefer his props. Last year I weighed 267 at 18% bf. Now, after working with Kiefer I am 288 at 17.5% bf (same person measuring, caliper, sites, etc). His program is easy for me to follow and I feel fantastic. I know other great lifters like Brian Carroll and Rob Luyando have also had excellent results. Sorry, I had to get all anecdotal in this very scientific debate. I’m just a guy who presses heavy stuff.
Folks…. The premise of “carb backloading” has been around forever. It isn’t something “breakthrough” or new. Numerous studies have been done on this approach. Like other strategies, it has its merits… and its limitations.
Here [among dozens of others] is one to simply show that the concept has been studied by many:
http://onestopmuscle.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/research-studies/screen-shot-2011-08-05-at-22-05-34.png
@keifer
Hi Keifer,
I’m a protein biochemist and it took me years and an entire 400-level course devoted to protein interactions to finally truly understand entropy on a molecular level.
Care to enlighten me as to how it applies here?
@Janni:
Thank you for the reference. That’s awesome that my ideas are being investigated and vindicated. As for, “has been around forever” and “numerous studies” could you please provide more? Also, notice that this article hasn’t even been published yet. It’s been Epublished head of print just a few months ago. Here’s the full link (not sure why you didn’t give the link, Janni but thanks for including the PMID in the screen shot).
Greater Weight Loss and Hormonal Changes After 6 Months Diet With Carbohydrates Eaten Mostly at Dinner.
For those interested in how entropy applies, read the references, 1 through 4.
For those who wish to gain a deep understanding of all things statistical-mechanically related (the basis of the conversation here), I suggest Statistical Physics, Third Edition, Part 1 and Statistical Physics, Third Edition, Part 2 by Landau and Lifshitz. The entire series answered many questions for me while doing my graduate work.
For the record, Mr. Kiefer, can you please confirm and acknowledge [under your signature] that you [according to your previous posts] are the sole pioneer of carb backloading and that you confirm that this methodology has never been considered or executed by any other individual before you. And, anyone studying or using this method got the concept soley from you. Please verify so your official declaration of “invention” can be referenced, quoted, and footnoted in future discussions and editorials. Thank you.
As a nutrition student I find it astounding how many people in the nutrition profession will touch on this in their lectures and published work but still preach ‘a calorie is a calorie’. It’s refreshing to see an article that keeps to the point.
Browsing around the carb nite website, I came across this quote:
“Think exercise is going to help? Alone, exercise won’t cause fat-loss for over nine months and it makes no difference in fat-loss when done in combination with a diet plan. This applies to all types of exercise: weight lifting, walking, cycling, Tai Chi, yoga, pilates, running, etc. There are several reasons to perform exercise (like improved mental acuity, longevity and muscle retention), but when first starting off, fat-loss is not one of them.”
Mr. Kiefer, do you believe that exercise makes no difference in fat-loss or that exercise makes no difference in fat-loss when done in combination with a diet plan?
People seem to want to make nutrition into something big and mysterious. I get that there is a need for the knowledge behind how and why a certain diet plan works, but honestly the best thing I’ve found is doing your own experimentation on yourself. Everyones body is different and needs different levels of macronutrients, to assume that a single diet will work miracles for everyone who tries it is lunacy.
I believe the “a calorie is a calorie” argument is sound, and obviously there a calories from good sources and bad alike. If you challenge that I would suggest doing a workout on 3000 of dr pepper and see how you perform. For those of us looking for practical application of a diet plan remember that everything has potential. But it may not work for you, I’m not saying Mr. Kiefer is wrong in his argument, I’m sure his credentials speak much louder than my own and that he knows what he is saying. I speak from my own empirical reasearch, following my own testable hypothesize and my own theories related to my genetic makeup and my metabolism and I know what works for me. To make a blanket statement saying that whatever has been working for people no longer is valid even though it gets the job done seems pretty stupid. To sum up, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, there’s a ton of information out there and I a lot of it is very good information, but for the most part it’s just that. Find what works for you.
well that was a shit article. a calorie will always be a calorie, just like a joule is a joule and a kwh is a kwh.
nice try with the science though, you almost come across as educated.
Hey Kiefer great article, I have been using back loading for a week now and already notice a difference in BF level and vascularity, great stuff.
I just saw your article in Men’s Fitness and followed the suggested links back here. I then headed over to Amazon to pick up a copy of your book _the Carb Nite Solution_. I thought you would find it funny that a few sellers are selling your book for $104. It must contain some GREAT advice for that price.
Another enjoyable article. I thought you had died with how infrequently you post on your site!
For what it’s worth Lyle’s reference to a study where they showed a difference in TEF did a great job proving that there is a difference in TEF (and therefore physiological calories)! I mean, its a terribly uncontrolled piece of crap but still nice of him to prove the hypothesis of your article. He even goes on to say that protein makes a much bigger difference and the only way this would matter is if someone were to manipulate their macro-nutrients in a large way! How convenient of him to assume you were trading a 40% fat 40% carb diet for a 39% fat 41% carb diet! 100 calories is 100 calories Lyle, Kiefer never claimed you can bathe in olive oil and look like Ronnie Coleman. He just said that it makes a difference.
I really want to like Lyle (and Aragon’s) stuff but when they go into these nonsensical nerd rages that make absolutely no sense it makes it obvious that they just can’t learn when to take a shot and move on. Even better, they could read the second paragraph about learning to admit being wrong and take it a step further by not responding to every flame or even learning to collaborate with someone that has a different scientific background than they do.
I’ve really enjoyed your articles (along with Nate Winkler’s) over the last year and I’m looking forward to the update to your site. Thanks for writing Kiefer.
does anyone else think that the picture at the top of the page of chicken and mixed veggies with a sprig of thyme looks delicious, or is it just me?
Can I eat protein bars during the overfeeding phase?
A calorie is a calorie. To say other wise is to say a kilometer is not a kilometer. A kilogram is not a kilogram. It is a measure of energy content. 1kcal of fat has exactly the same energy content as 1kcal of protein as 1kcal of carb. 1kcal!
That’s not to say that 100kcals of fat has exactly the same nutritional effect as 100kcals of protein or carb or alcohol. Where the kcals come from is a factor in how those kcals are or are not used by the body, and even that varies from one person to the next, and varies with both macro and micro nutrient mix and myraid other factors like exercise, exercise modality etc.
But at the end of the day, the NUMBER ONE PROBLEM for the vast majority of people trying to “lose weight” is kcal consumption. And if kcal consumption is not under control, no amount of macro or micro nutrient adjustment games are going to make a lick of difference.
Back away from the brownies …
Wow, who would of thought that a little article about calorie is a calorie would get a lot of peoples panties up in bunches. I guess some people walk around so tight assed, you couldn’t put a finish nail up there. oh well i guess i digress.
To be honest i could really care less about all this science about thermal heat this and that. its mumbo jumbo as far as i’m concerned. But what i do care about is if something works and doesn’t work. And let me tell you this carb back loading does work. It’s the easiest thing i have ever done. I have never eaten more shit at night and looked better (comparing me to me). I t also inspires you to bust your ass at the gym, which is fun now. Don’t be afraid, give it shot and i bet you won’t be critiscizing anymore.
Keep up the great work Kief, and can’t wait until the book comes out so I can take it to another level.
Cheers, Kevin
@ Mark , a kilometer is a kilometer in terms of measurement. However a kilometer of walking up a mountain is different to walking through the dessert of swimming through the sea..
With all due respect, but there is more than one problem with your reasoning:
- The 1978 Rabast et al. study for example, doesn’t, as far as I can see, take a loss of glycogen into account, that is usually associated with low carb / high protein diets. This study,
http://www.ajcn.org/content/63/1/47.abstract
found a difference of 14%. As 1 g of glycogen stores 4 g of water and as the average adult has about 600 g of glycogen at his disposal, lowering this by 14% equals a difference in weight lost of app. 400 g.
- The 1985 study by Donato et al. was in 1987 followed up by another that stated: “Adult male rats were weight matched into four groups. One group that was fed a low-fat diet (12%) served as reference controls. The other three groups were fed diets of 24, 36, or 48% fat in amounts to equal the energy intake of the control group. After 6 wk, body weights of the four groups were not significantly different.” See:
http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/268/4/E546.short
Yet by your reasoning, the rats in the 48% group should have weighed way less than the 24$ group, shouldn’t they? It may of course be that chicken are different – which in return means you’d have to show up something that substantiates your argument where it concerns humans. I would be, no kidding, be very interested in seeing a study where your chicken findings were replicated in humans. When Dr. Feinman says he “predicts” the existence of a difference (your sources 1-4), then that isn’t quite scientific.
- When the caloric value of a food is calculated, the TEF is accounted for. What you apparently are trying to do is substract it again. See rat study above. The same cardinal error is also made by fans of “negative calorie foods”.
@Evilcyber:
If you check reference 3, I think this dispels your focus solely on Rabal, 1978.
It’s common knowledge that any low-carb diet induces a loss of glycogen and the associated water storage. That’s why roughly 70% of the first week weight loss is water+carb loss.
I’m actually not sure what your reference to Kiens and Richter (1996) is supposed to show or its relevance here. It is an interesting study on how the body adjusts between a low-GI diet and high-GI diet and supports the idea that fat-burning vs carb-burning is a graded response and not an on-or-off process.
It is possible that the rat model does not correlate with the human, and could be accounted for by differences in brown fat content between humans and rats, allowing for a more efficient method of heat production, thus giving us an engine of differing efficiency–like trying to compare a diesel engine to a petrol engine. This is just a thought, a possible explanation, and one that I haven’t explored. To be honest, I’m not all that interested in how a high-fat diet affects rats, as most of my clients are human (I’m not sure about a couple, but even they do not appear to be rats).
I am also confused by your grouping of references (1-4) as “hypothetical” when only 1 of the 4 is based on a theoretical model.
I’ll even through something even more fun into the mix, an unexplained anomaly, where a high-carb diet induced a greater weight change than the low-carb diet:
Hypocaloric high-protein diet improves glucose oxidation and spares lean body mass: comparison to hypocaloric high-carbohydrate diet.
You’ll notice, however, that the high-carb group lost more muscle mass which could be the entire explanation since carb and triglyceride storage capacity would also be less, plus the loss of a heavier tissue.
Hello John, I do not really what to call you, Dr., Professor, I loved all of your articles, and plan to purchase the Carb Backloading but noticed that the Titanium edition has been sold out.
I have a video for you and all those who are interested in the scientific truths behind the laws you have talked about and mainly that a Calorie is NOT a Calorie. This is a scientific conference runs for an hour and a half..hope that you have time for this…you certainly will like it a lot.
I would like to ask a few questions regarding the carb backloading process. I understand the process and that I need an induction period of about 10 days with 30 g of Carbs to sort of teach my body into using fat as a primary source of energy. I have started working out with great consistency since September of 2010. I was 320 LBS and I am 6’2”. Now I am down to 270 lbs but have hit a plateau and it just gets very difficult to lose more weight. I mainly do resistance training. Ok well, my question is how can I start the first phase of backloading on such an intense resistance training, would that cause my RMR to slow down or not? Should I worry about sparing some muscle mass during these 10 days? I understand that the first days on 30 grams of carbs is the first phase of Carb Nite which is for those who do not do resistance training, but do we need to follow the 30 grams rule for 10 days even while we are on intense resistance training? I actually started today, I went very low carb during the day, and hit the gym at 5 p.m., but did not ingest a lot of carbs post work out, and I checked my urine with a dipstick and turns out there is a trace of ketones. The reason why I am asking is because if I go for 10 days like this and there is already ketones present from day one, I am afraid that I would lose some muscle mass. Your clarification will be greatly appreciated.
Here is the youtube video I was telling you about
@Kiefer, et al.
I’m a new reader, so please take it easy on me :) I happened to stumble upon this today. Here’s my take on things…
I’m a registered dietitian and certified diabetes educator and I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this conversation. I do not disregard any of the statements made and I understand your point (and the science and logic behind it) that, simply put, thermogenesis and/or thermogenic efficiency can be modified/enhanced by modifying macronutrient intake. But in looking at the “big picture,” it is essential that calorie intake to be the first and foremost focus to promote weight loss. In the few long-term studies that are available, people lose statistically equal amounts of weight no matter what the macronutrient distribution is.
Secondarily, the quality of the diet is supremely important. High fiber foods are primarily carb and supply many vital nutrients. Fiber has many benefits of it’s own and as a bonus, since fiber is not fully digested, the body doesn’t reap the total amount of calories taken in, resulting in decreased calorie intake. High saturated fat diets can risk a person’s heart health. And since when is it healthy to promote ketosis?
Since we are talking about humans, we have to keep in consideration of one other very important factor: ability to maintain the diet you are following. It’s difficult to maintain a low carb diet for a length of time.
In addition, I don’t care only about a person’s weight; I care about their overall health. It is impossible to meet nutrient requirements following a very low carb diet (via food intake, not supplements) and potentially harmful to rely on fat and/or protein as the primary macronutrient(s) in the diet. I aim to help people achieve optimal health through optimal macronutrient distribution–which I still believe to be about 50% carb, 30% fat and 20% protein; which humans naturally drift back to anyway–moderate calorie restriction, and increased exercise. I remain open-minded to research that might show me something to the contrary is better. Perhaps modification of macronutrient content yields a degree of calorie savings, but I believe we’re missing the real point. Being at a healthy weight doesn’t necessarily mean we are healthy–it’s much more complex. I don’t see anything that would change my science-based perspective yet. Your thoughts?
@elizabeth
Fat has never been proven to CAUSE heart disease.
On a low carb diet you can easily get enough nutrients. Very easy, eat ton of veggies, pastured meat (including organ meat – you can’t beat liver aka nature’s multivitamin). Last year I usually ate between 100 – 150 carbs a day, low by most standards, and had no problem meeting my RDAs.
I think low carb diets, including ketosis, have their place, but context is king here. It does not mean ketosis, low carb, high carb, high protein, etc apply to all people in all situations. Depends on goals, your genes, etc.
Carb back-loading, Lyles’ ultimate diet, are very specific diets for specific goals.
@Kiefer
One Dr. Michael Eades reviewed the apparently anomalous study in which the participants on the low fat diet lost more weight than those on the low carb diet. It turns out that this may be largely explained due to the difference in the starting weights of the individuals. The group on the low fat diet started at an average weight of 213 pounds, while the low carb group began the study at 191 pounds. Such a weight disparity would never be used in a study meant to measure weightloss, I would think.
Given that they were fed an isocaloric diet, it stands to reason that the group that weighed more initially would lose more weight. Therefore, the use of this study heavily stacks the odds in favor of a low fat diet.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/ac-metabolic-advantage-dismemberment/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+drmikenutritionblog+%28The+Blog+of+Michael+R.+Eades,+M.D.%29
2 years late to the party, but it is Gibbs, not Gibb’s. Named after Willard Gibbs.