[_superposition_]

"the findings add to the argument that all calories are not created equal." Well pardon my french but no fcking sht. Anyone person/system who strictly counts calories and completely looks over the fact that there are literally millions of other organisms involved in the digestive/energy process gets no love from me. Unfortunately its not as simple as calories in/calories out.

[jonlucc]

I think the problem here is that of BMI. While it is true that BMI is not always accurate as a measure of fitness, it usually is for people who go around saying that BMI doesn't mean anything. It is only incorrect for people who are extremely muscular, and those people know they're fit enough because they have other measures (like precise measures of body composition) to tell them.

So while it is true that not all calories are created equal, the people who most often seem to go around saying that seem to be the same people who refuse to pay attention to portion size and then bitch about not losing weight because they're only eating healthy foods.

[billmalarky]

>While it is true that BMI is not always accurate as a measure of fitness

You're right. I've never seen a fit person complain about the inaccuracy of BMI in anything other than a joking manner. It isn't precise, but it's "good enough" for the majority of people. It's a heuristic.

On the other hand, people who are clearly in poor shape love to scream up and down about how inaccurate BMI is at determining fitness levels. Ironic because BMI generally puts non-active people in a positive light. If we switched to body-fat percentage something tells me a lot of these folks would be clamoring to get BMI back since it under-reports people who have low enough mass to be not considered obese, but too high body fat to be healthy (thus are at greater risk for diabetes etc).

[wnevets]

You make it sound so obvious but there are many many people who still think in these terms. I recently had a comment in /r/science downvoted into oblivion for saying not all calories are created equal.

[_superposition_]

I wonder how many of those people are counting the calories in their own feces to get an accurate measurement...

[billmalarky]

>its not as simple as calories in/calories out.

For weight loss it is that simple though.

I'm not arguing overall health or anything like that, just fat (energy store) loss.

[_superposition_]

It is not that simple, simply because you cannot calculate the amount or rate of absorption. Your intestinal bacteria acts and reacts to changing foodstuffs. For example if your eating a consistent diet of the same foods regularly, your intestinal bacteria will become more efficient at breaking down the food over time. If you suddenly switch foods, it can become less efficient. That could be the case in this study.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/the-food-figh...

[billmalarky]

Counting calories isn't an exact science (yet), but it is simple and objectively effective for weight loss. Even if not exact, you really only need to be "close enough" with a good margin for error built in.

I get frustrated when people complicate weight loss when explaining methods to people who are interested in losing weight, rather than just boiling it down to the fundamentals (intake less calories/energy than you burn). All the competing fad methods are based around this fundamental with their own spin (and usually tie in a product that the user becomes dependent on to maintain weightless).