One of the things you gents have mentioned over the years is that a calorie deficit is always the basic requirement for weight loss to occur, and how we do that is the real question.
What is your opinion on studies like the one below, that seem to show that all calories are not created equal? For example, swapping carbs for protein while total calorie intake is kept the same tends to result in real weight loss (whether the participants exercise or not)?
There are even versions where total calories are actually increased by adding a couple shakes to the diet, but otherwise nothing is changed.
I have also heard people say that on keto they consumed more calories than before, but lost weight due to the change in what they were (fat and protein as opposed to carbs).
Anyway I would love to hear your take on this. Thanks!
Howdy!
Yes, a Calorie is a Calorie with respect to it being a unit of measurement, just like time, length, and mass.
The study cited further supports that, where the individuals consuming a high protein (HP) diet actually ate less than the standard protein (SP) diet. Their own Table 1 shows the HP arm’s reported intake dropped from 1,956 to 1,827 kcal/day across the trial while the SP arm went from 1,902 to 1,955. Averaged over the trial, HP was eating roughly 90 kcal/day less than SP; by week 12 the gap was 130.
We know the an increase in dietary protein CAN displace foods from the diet, i.e. reduced intake of ultra-processed foods and/or previous higher-Calorie protein sources. This seems to plateau around ~ 1.6 g/kg/d of protein, as discussed here.
The findings on lean body mass are also overstated, as they used BIA to assess changes in lean mass, which is highly error prone. It cannot accurately detect a 1.5kg change in lean mass, let alone muscle, especially since the researchers did not control for hydration. FWIW, DXA can’t do this either. There are other issues with this study, but I think you get the gist.
There are no trials showing that increased energy intake (and reduced energy deficit) from protein produces more weight loss than a lower energy intake (and greater energy deficit) whether it’s from protein or another macronutrient. As you know, people often mis-report their dietary intake and can say things like “I’m eating WAY more than before and losing weight”, but this is almost certainly not the case when their intake is accurately accounted for.
Hope this helps!
-Jordan
Great, thank you! That’s interesting how the measurements may be an issue.
Below is another example where they specifically claim that a total calorie increase due to protein nonetheless led to weight loss. An excerpt:
“Another important finding from the study was the high protein group lost a significant amount of fat mass whereas reductions in the low-protein group were not statistically significant. These results held true despite the fact that those the higher protein group ingested significantly more kilocalories (approximately 400 kcals) in the form of protein. These results are consistent with those of Antonio et al. (2015), who reported a loss of 2.4% body fat with consumption of 3.4 g/kg/day versus only a 0.7% decrease when consuming 2.3 g/kg/day. Considering that weight loss is a function of energy balance (Thomas et al., 2009), these findings may seem counterintuitive…”
Full link:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322973405_Effects_of_High_vs_Low_Protein_Intake_on_Body_Composition_and_Maximal_Strength_in_Aspiring_Female_Physique_Athletes_Engaging_in_an_8-Week_Resistance_Training_Program
Thank you for your input,
Casey
In this paper, the ~400 kcal is the gap between the two groups, HP eating more than LP. The number that decides whether energy balance held is each group against its own baseline. HP went from 1,588 to 1,839 kcal/day, so they raised intake about 250 kcal, and their body weight went up a kilo (Table 2). They didn’t lose weight while eating more. They lost fat mass and gained more lean mass, which nets out to weight gain. Most would call this body recomposition, and it doesn’t require a deficit.
The paper agrees, sort of. Their own limitations section says the energy difference between groups likely drove the lean mass changes and calls it a confounder. I’m not sure why there is such a long thermic-effect explanation in the discussion trying to resolve a fat-loss-despite-more-food paradox that isn’t there once you notice the scale went up in the HP group.
Speaking of recomposition, I should also add that the body comp here is ultrasound, with a small sample size, and no hydration control. The technician’s own minimal detectable difference was 1.03 kg, and the LP lean mass change was +0.6 kg, under their own instrument’s resolution. HP also ate a lot more carbohydrate, so some of that lean mass gain is plausibly glycogen and water.
Overall, it’s not a case of more Calories causing weight loss, as the higher-intake group gained weight.
1 Like
Awesome, see this is why everyone follows you guys. No one else does “citation needed” like you do.
Amazing work good sir! 
1 Like