To quote Gary Taubes, who tries to puncture this myth:
The reason people believe we get fat because of overeating and sedentary behavior is because they believe the laws of thermodynamics somehow dictate this to be true. In particular the first law, which tells us that energy is conserved, so if a system takes in more energy than it expends, the energy contained in the system has to increase. If that system happens to be our fat tissue, than the fat tissue accumulates fat. That’s the logic. So if we eat more than we expend, we get fatter and the logic turns this around to say that we get fat because we eat more than we expend. And so, overeating and sedentary behavior are the causes. This is the logic that leads virtually every government health agency and independent health organization (the AHA, the AMA, you name it) to have some variation of this World Health Organization statement on its website or in its promotional material: “The fundamental cause of obesity and overweight is an energy imbalance between calories consumed on one hand, and calories expended on the other hand.”
The reason sometimes we put too much emphasis on the basic-thermodynamics side of things is that we're busy fighting a war against dumb fad diets.
But once you acknowledge the basic calories in vs calories out principle, you can start thinking about what foods make it easiest to maintain a caloric deficit. Even the most 'traditional' of health authorities acknowledge that this is a factor, which is why they won't say "Hey, whatever, eat three slices of chocolate cake a day and nothing else". The first factor is making sure you get sufficient nutrition along with your calories, the second is making sure you feel full while maintaining a caloric deficit. There's a growing acknowledgement that low-carb diets can help with both of these.
This study suggests a third factor: that eating a low-carb diet can actually boost your base metabolic rate. How? Not sure. It would be interesting to see whether it gets replicated in a larger scale study.
I believe low-carb diets (low carb, slow carb, paleo, etc) are well understood and praised amongst people with interest in nutrition and fitness, but it's still slowly making it's way into the general population.
For a good reason. First and foremost, general population just needs to eat less, a lot less. Once we get past that point, macro-nutrient composition can be the next level of diet optimization.
An example: "Not all the donuts are eaten." "All the donuts are not eaten."
Assume some donuts have been eaten. Which is correct?
As I understand English, the first is logically correct, but the second is typically used.
I apologize now to all of you who have never noticed this before, as it may haunt you now for the rest of your lives.
Of course it can be confusing, and sometimes even downright contradictory if you think too hard about it. But language is flexible, and most people just don't write with such rigorous logic. So, just mentally realize that, given the context, the most likely interpretation is:
"all calories are not alike" = NOT("all calories are alike")
If this is still haunting you, just do what Allie does:
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better...
The "not" is correctly used in either case, except in the edge case of "all" or "none".
This piece also seems to be pretty marketing/weight loss heavy, as opposed to proper nutrition. (I think for an active person, a proper diet is around 40% calories from protein, 30% from both fat and carbs?) or do I have protein and carbs swapped...?
"Subjects burned more than 300 additional calories on average when on the very low-carbohydrate dietcompared with the low-fat diet."
"Subjects burned 200 additional calories on the low glycemic index diet than on the low-fat diet."
"Ludwig also didn't recommend a very low-carb diet even though it offered the best metabolic edge. Some measurements suggested it could be risky for the heart, he said."
"The low-glycemic diet — which he has recommended for a long time — did not seem to have these problems, he said, making it the best bet."
"A low glycemic index diet is rich in whole grains, fruits and vegetables and is designed to prevent sharp spikes in blood sugar"
*edited, more to the point.
Also, I'm surprised that they didn't trial a 60% protein, 20% fat and 20% carb diet!
now, my body does not have an active flame, and I don't have a combustion engine in my stomach. I use a (mysterious to me) metabolic process to convert what I eat into energy that my body can use.
For me, an individuals metabolic rate may be roughly proportional to kcal intake, but it is not the same thing, and it is different for different food types, combinations, and for different people.
I liked the article - even though I am not a dietician, I do think there is something wrong about the Adkins diet.. not healthy.
I suppose it's my mentality that you adjust your eating habits based on your diet contents and its effect on metabolism, to match the kcal values, rather than viewing the kcal as an inconstant value.
Thank you, by the way. I enjoyed the opportunity to think though this
In the parent comment, I'm including bodily factors like metabolic reactions within "expend". The degree to which this makes a difference in overall expenditure is the un-quantifiable part; but adjusting your diet further to counter this lack of expenditure will still have the same effect. It still is a numbers game in my mind.
Without actually measuring energy fluxes, "a kcal is a kcal" is meaningless.
She's skeptical. Basically, she says you cannot really draw any reliable conclusions becuase of the short, highly controlled conditions of the study.
