[tommizzle]

I would say it's pretty common knowledge in the fitness world. I think this quote explains the concept nicely:

"The second rule of fat loss is that healthy fat does not make you fat. Excess calories, in particular excess from the wrong calories makes you fat. This is a very hard concept to get across. People still believe that fat makes you fat and will argue without you to the grave while they eat a gallon of low fat ice cream that has the power to make you fat over night.

...

Lets get back to fat. Low fat diets equal low testosterone and low progesterone production. Both are necessary for men and women for optimal fat loss and well-being.

Without adequate levels of fat in your diet (30% of calories), you will not have adequate levels of testosterone. Without adequate levels of testosterone you will not be able to build muscle. Building muscle is the most effective way to get rid of fat and keep it off. " - Mike Mahler

[WilliamLP]

You're preaching to the choir here. What you're not going to be able to demonstrate is that, in laboratory controlled conditions where literally every calorie is counted by a scientist, and all variables are taken into account (e.g. hyrdation levels) that one kind of calorie leads to a "metabolic advantage" over another and lead to more or less fat loss or gain given adequate protein. This would be a kind of holy grail discovery.

What is undeniable is that any study where people self-count their caloric intake has a ton of potential problems which have been demonstrated over and over again. People are notoriously terrible at counting calories in what they eat.

It is true that sugars have certain metabolic effects, for example with insulin, that will make you hungrier and crave more. This makes it true that they should be avoided. Basically I think we're on the same page if you're willing to scratch the "obviously".

Another point is that the amount that doing weight training raises your metabolism is extremely overrated. I don't have the hard data in front of me but I think if you look up how many more calories you burn by gaining a pound of muscle, you will be shocked that it isn't that much. This is one of those "everybody knows" facts about fitness that everyone believes but isn't really backed up very well.

[flatulent1]

"What you're not going to be able to demonstrate is that, in laboratory controlled conditions where literally every calorie is counted by a scientist, and all variables are taken into account (e.g. hyrdation levels) that one kind of calorie leads to a "metabolic advantage" over another..."

There doesn't have to be a metabolic advantage for there to be a difference between calorie sources.

The number of calories eaten does not equal the number absorbed. Some things will be absorbed more readily than others. Foods are not all equal. People differ in significant ways both longer and short term. We don't all have the same mix of intestinal floura to help with digestion. Some foods may help/hinder getting calories/nutrients from others. Efficiency no doubt is higher when the food is taken in throughout the day instead of mostly at once. Even chewing better makes some difference. And other aspects of body chemistry, such as stomach acidity level no doubt have an influence.

I read of a U.N. worker working to help people with serious health problems in very poor nations. To get a fast inexpensive benefit a comparison was made of healthy/unhealthy people with similar (limited) food access and exposure to environmental hazards. The conclusion was that those who spread a given amount of food out through the day got more nutrition that those who ate it all at once. Of course some things are absorbed very easily (like our corn syrup), but it's easier to disrupt absorption of fats and heavier things.

I'd been taught that it was better to delay most liquids to the end of a meal, so that stomach acids would be more effective for breaking things down. Eat most of the heavier items first, shifting towards veggies and fruit then liquids.

Doing the opposite may cause weight loss (seems better to say less gain), but I think most consuming a significant amount of liquid first are apt to feel uncomfortable, especially with higher fat meals, as they're not handled as well. Eating a patty melt or other greasy food after a lot of water or coffee always had me feeling much worse on the road afterward than the same amount of everything in the reverse order. It's better to eat less than to make digestion less efficient.

My summary: It's the water reducing the acidity that made the difference with constant calorie input, but it's better to eat less than to make digestion less efficient like that.

[tommizzle]

Hah - "obviously" retracted.

From what I've heard most people seem to think that 50 calories are burned per pound of muscle per day, but I think that it's closer to 8? I was under the impression that the repairing of the muscle after workouts is where you burn the majority.

[count]

This covers some of that very well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[tommizzle]

Cliff notes?

[count]

Due to the way the body processes fructose and glucose, fructose leads more directly to being 'fat', as it's stored as adipose tissue more readily/rapidly than glucose. Fructose, in HFCS and other solutions, is becoming extremely common in food where it did not used to be - this is leading to the huge increase in metabolic syndrome/etc. tl;dr: sugar makes you fat, but different sugars do it at different rates.

[sambe]

I don't think it is "common knowledge" - in fact, I think it's almost entirely untrue. Fats in general are calorifically dense, and you will "get fat" by eating a lot of them regardless of if they are "good" or "bad". Good fats may be better for heart disease etc. Some fats are also essential in the diet. Fine. Good vs bad calories is nonsense.

[sambe]

Umm... just downvoting today? Is there something specifically that you disagree with? Do you feel the need to downvote when you disagree with something?

- All fats are more than twice the calorific density of carbs/proteins. Disagree? - Good fats will still make you put on weight if you eat a lot of them. Disagree? - Predominate attribute used to decide "good"/"bad" is effect on heart/cardiovascular health. Disagree? - Essential fats cannot be metabolised by the body from simpler substances. Disagree? - All calories have the same energy content by definition, and apart from details will make you fat at the same rate per amount eaten. Disagree?

I think it's pretty obvious that I don't believe "fat [alone] makes you fat" as in the quote but health fat most certainly will if you eat a lot of it. I haven't read the famous popular book on the subject, but my understanding is that the thesis is based on things like satiety and a new take on heart health, not a fundamental difference in "types of calorie" re: weight gain. Regardless, downvoting seems inappropriate.

[evanchen]

I upvoted you.

As a nutrition/fitness buff I completely agree with the comment. There is no good or bad calorie when it comes to weight loss. You eat good fats for health reasons, but as far as weight gain/loss goes, it is purely a function of calorie intake-- no matter the source.

[tommizzle]

Ok, lets try a different example:

John and Dave both eat the exact same 3 meals every day, for 30 days. When they both come home, they both do exactly the same workout. After the workout John has 50g of whey protein powder @ 110 calories, whilst Dave has 110 calories worth of coca cola (~290ml).

Now, given that protein helps muscle growth, and the more muscle you have, the more calories you burn, who loses the most fat after the 30 days?

[evanchen]

You are mixing two variables here. If you get 100 calories from orange juice vs. coca-cola, then yes, they are the same. If both John and Dave are receiving enough protein prior to the coca cola/whey protein, then they will burn the same amount of calories as well.