Topic: not all calories are created equal

[Plastique]

Higher protein food seem to raise the base metabolic rate i.e. they make the body work harder to extract the calories in the food consumed.

I'm not sure if that could be called raising metabolic rate.

If you are expending more energy to digest something your base metabolism (the amount of energy used while at rest) will increase so please elaborate on your statement.

Okay. Given an identical diet and amount of activity on two different days, if I burned more energy on day two, that would mean an increased metabolic rate. The amount of energy required to process and utilize a given macronutrient (in this case protein) has no bearing on your metabolic rate (as far as I know, at least).

So, no, your base metabolism won't have changed, you'll have just eaten something that requires a bit more energy to process. Does that make sense?

[Skulker]

Higher protein food seem to raise the base metabolic rate i.e. they make the body work harder to extract the calories in the food consumed.

I'm not sure if that could be called raising metabolic rate.

If you are expending more energy to digest something your base metabolism (the amount of energy used while at rest) will increase so please elaborate on your statement.

Okay. Given an identical diet and amount of activity on two different days, if I burned more energy on day two, that would mean an increased metabolic rate. The amount of energy required to process and utilize a given macronutrient (in this case protein) has no bearing on your metabolic rate (as far as I know, at least).

So, no, your base metabolism won't have changed, you'll have just eaten something that requires a bit more energy to process. Does that make sense?

From Wikipedia:

Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), and the closely related resting metabolic rate (RMR), is the amount of energy expended daily by humans and other animals at rest. Rest is defined as existing in a neutrally temperate environment while in the post-absorptive state. In plants, different considerations apply.

The release, and using, of energy in this state is sufficient only for the functioning of the vital organs, the heart, lungs, nervous system, kidneys, liver, intestine, sex organs, muscles, and skin.

Given that, if it takes more energy by the intestines to break down protien, then you BMR will be higher.

[Plastique]

Higher protein food seem to raise the base metabolic rate i.e. they make the body work harder to extract the calories in the food consumed.

I'm not sure if that could be called raising metabolic rate.

If you are expending more energy to digest something your base metabolism (the amount of energy used while at rest) will increase so please elaborate on your statement.

Okay. Given an identical diet and amount of activity on two different days, if I burned more energy on day two, that would mean an increased metabolic rate. The amount of energy required to process and utilize a given macronutrient (in this case protein) has no bearing on your metabolic rate (as far as I know, at least).

So, no, your base metabolism won't have changed, you'll have just eaten something that requires a bit more energy to process. Does that make sense?

From Wikipedia:

Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), and the closely related resting metabolic rate (RMR), is the amount of energy expended daily by humans and other animals at rest. Rest is defined as existing in a neutrally temperate environment while in the post-absorptive state. In plants, different considerations apply.

The release, and using, of energy in this state is sufficient only for the functioning of the vital organs, the heart, lungs, nervous system, kidneys, liver, intestine, sex organs, muscles, and skin.

Given that, if it takes more energy by the intestines to break down protien, then you BMR will be higher.

You just proved my point, dude.

Rest is defined as existing in a neutrally temperate environment while in the post-absorptive state.

[Skulker]

Higher protein food seem to raise the base metabolic rate i.e. they make the body work harder to extract the calories in the food consumed.

I'm not sure if that could be called raising metabolic rate.

If you are expending more energy to digest something your base metabolism (the amount of energy used while at rest) will increase so please elaborate on your statement.

Okay. Given an identical diet and amount of activity on two different days, if I burned more energy on day two, that would mean an increased metabolic rate. The amount of energy required to process and utilize a given macronutrient (in this case protein) has no bearing on your metabolic rate (as far as I know, at least).

So, no, your base metabolism won't have changed, you'll have just eaten something that requires a bit more energy to process. Does that make sense?

From Wikipedia:

Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), and the closely related resting metabolic rate (RMR), is the amount of energy expended daily by humans and other animals at rest. Rest is defined as existing in a neutrally temperate environment while in the post-absorptive state. In plants, different considerations apply.

The release, and using, of energy in this state is sufficient only for the functioning of the vital organs, the heart, lungs, nervous system, kidneys, liver, intestine, sex organs, muscles, and skin.

Given that, if it takes more energy by the intestines to break down protien, then you BMR will be higher.

You just proved my point, dude.

Rest is defined as existing in a neutrally temperate environment while in the post-absorptive state.

You're confusing BMR and RMR. I don't think the study mentioned RMR.

[Plastique]

No, I'm not confusing RMR and BMR, and I don't know what your point is.

All I'm saying is that the net energy available to you from the food you eat is separate from your metabolic rate. Yes, you get less usable energy from a given number of calories of protein on your plate than you would from the same number of calories of fat on your plate—that has nothing directly do to with metabolism.

[Skulker]

Then why did you highlight  'post-absorptive state' when it only has to do with RMR ?

Maybe an example will help.

If your BMR is X calories/hours when you eat carbs then your BMR when you eat protein would be X + Y where Y is the extra energy needed to process the protein. Understand ?

[Lukas]

Then why did you highlight  'post-absorptive state' when it only has to do with RMR ?

Maybe an example will help.

If your BMR is X calories/hours when you eat carbs then your BMR when you eat protein would be X + Y where Y is the extra energy needed to process the protein. Understand ?

This would be a possible definition of BMR, but not a very useful one. Anything that increases your metabolic rate temporarily, through activity, anxiety, digestion, whatever, should not be included in the BASAL metabolic rate. It is supposed to be a baseline for your metabolism. If it increases your metabolic rate for the next 24 hours or so, I guess it would make sense to say it increases the BMR, but not if it just affects you during the time you need to digest the food.

[Plastique]

Then why did you highlight  'post-absorptive state' when it only has to do with RMR ?

That's your problem there. The post-absorptive state is not only associated with RMR.

[WeeDavie]

weird just taking a break from writing up my lastest results on the topic macronutirents and rebound weight gain and I find a thread on the topic. I can say that yes indeed all Calories are not created equal and the reason why hasn't been mentioned yet.

But I shouldn't go all pre-mo and spill the beans, but I can do an evil laugh while singing


'I know something you don't know, do-da, do-da,
I know something, you don't know do-da-do-da-day'.

 

[jt512]

Then why did you highlight  'post-absorptive state' when it only has to do with RMR ?

Maybe an example will help.

If your BMR is X calories/hours when you eat carbs then your BMR when you eat protein would be X + Y where Y is the extra energy needed to process the protein. Understand ?

You're wrong.  By definition, neither BMR nor RMR include the energy required to process food.  That is considered to be a separate component of energy expenditures know as the thermic effect (of food).  The authors are explicitly claiming that the differences they observed in energy expenditure between diets cannot be due to differences in the thermic effects of the diets.

Jay

[lonely moa]

Doesn't caloric restriction lower one's metabolic need for calories?

[Skulker]

Then why did you highlight  'post-absorptive state' when it only has to do with RMR ?

That's your problem there. The post-absorptive state is not only associated with RMR.

I give up. Take it up with jt512 or WeeDavie. 

[jt512]

The authors are explicitly claiming that the differences they observed in energy expenditure between diets cannot be due to differences in the thermic effects of the diets.

That said, the difference in RMR is small, and there is essentially no difference in physical activity.  That means that the primary component of energy expenditures responsible for the observed difference in total energy expenditures must be the thermic effect of food, since that's the only component left.  The only significant difference in total energy expenditures (measured by the respiratory quotient) was between the low-carbohydrate diet and the low-fat diet.  The low-carbohydrate diet contained 50% more protein than the low-fat diet.  Since protein has a greater thermic effect than either carbohydrate or fat, this is exactly the outcome you'd expect.

[Plastique]

I give up. Take it up with jt512 or WeeDavie. 

Skulker, this whole time my only quibble has been with one exact instance of how you phrased something (in the post of yours I initially quoted). To be specific, how you equated the body working harder to extract calories from food (basically TEF) with raising metabolism. They are not the same thing. Here's the quote once more.

Higher protein food seem to raise the base metabolic rate i.e. they make the body work harder to extract the calories in the food consumed.

[Tatyana]

The authors are explicitly claiming that the differences they observed in energy expenditure between diets cannot be due to differences in the thermic effects of the diets.

That said, the difference in RMR is small, and there is essentially no difference in physical activity.  That means that the primary component of energy expenditures responsible for the observed difference in total energy expenditures must be the thermic effect of food, since that's the only component left.  The only significant difference in total energy expenditures (measured by the respiratory quotient) was between the low-carbohydrate diet and the low-fat diet.  The low-carbohydrate diet contained 50% more protein than the low-fat diet.  Since protein has a greater thermic effect than either carbohydrate or fat, this is exactly the outcome you'd expect.

Unless I am mistaken, this really isn't anything new. Off the top of my head, when you consume fat, you typically get 100% of the calories from what you have eaten, about 90% of the the calories from carbs and approximately 85 % from protein due to the thermic effect.