First, apologies for the link. But since the subject has been discussed previously – more than once – it seemed coherent to post it, not least since Dr Aseem Malhotra is far from being some quack. All calories are not equal.

First, apologies for the link. But since the subject has been discussed previously – more than once – it seemed coherent to post it, not least since Dr Aseem Malhotra is far from being some quack. All calories are not equal.

Whilst the chemistry has effects that aren't usually taken into account, beware that excess total calories consumed DO lead to weight gain, whether they come from fat, carbs or protein.
There is no magic bullet.

To say, as that guy does, that "I'm sure I eat more calories than I burn, yet my weight and waist measurement normally remain the same." is utterly ridiculous.

I think the most important aspects of the article are those of pointing out the issues with complex carbs, plus that fat is not the enemy per se, even in terms of heart health.

There are experts in various different areas of weight and diet and exercise, but nowhere where they seem to "join up the dots" as to their latest findings.

To me, it's plainly obvious that not all calories are the same. Calorific content is, basically, how much energy a given weight of a given food will produce if burned. But your body is not an incinerator. Nor does it process every single atom you input. Well, in one sense it does, but whenever you pay a visit you excrete fat, carbs and calories so your body didn't USE them all.

So it's not a question just of how many calories or carbs you eat. One question is how many of them will your body retain and then convert into fat or tissue.

I am no expert but it seems plain to me that everyone's body will vary, and every individual's body will also convert better or worse at different times and in different conditions.

So I would say it IS very easily possible to eat more calories than you burn, and not put on weight. If the two figures were close, then it would - to me- indeed be inevitable.

1. a fair percentage of the eaten calories will be excreted. I'd guess at least around 10%
2. More calories will be later passed out in your urine.
3. People forget that apart from you, your body is the host to countless trillions of bacteria. Each one has an energy requirement to stay alive and function. That energy is taken from your calorie intake.

Also, metabolising protein seems to require more energy that metabolising fat or carbs, so you would, pound for pound, end up with less fat.

I wouldn't think, though that consuming diets low in fat, or carbs, or protein or adjusting the ratios would have a significant effect, when compared with the overall effect of simply eating less. That will overwhelmingly be the biggest factor, all other things in your life being equal. I don't personally believe it would make a measurable or predictable difference to your weight loss, whatever form of calorie intake you choose, and certainly not a significant one.

Going on a three week calorific significant surplus seems an odd way to test calorific deficit theories

Anyway.....having dropped a bit of fat lately and figured out my strength training (at 42, I'm stronger than I've ever been and lighter than since my teens) here's what I've worked out worked for me and a few others.
Calories pretty much are calories regardless of source. Except sugar, which is bad for making you hungrier later. Fat should only be considered bad because it's so calorie dense. The article hints that the fast metabolism of sugars could be problematic.
Aerobic exercise is over rated. It burns calories, fair enough, but it's easier to eat 300 cals less than burn 300 cals.
If you work out your basic metabolic rate and eat to that, it's then fairly easy to move your weight up or down.
If you track the macros (cals, Protein, carbs and fat) daily, you will be suprised at how much or how little, and how much your diet varies. Most people who say they can't gain weight aren't eating much and most who gain weight are eating far more cals than they thought.
If you track for a few days, you get a quick idea of what foods will give you what and it becomes easier to do. It's not so difficult once you get in the habit.
Varying intake by 300-500 up or down from that works out to weight gain/loss of 1-2 pounds a week. More than that is counterproductive, i.e. slows down weight loss or just gains fat.
I would think most people have too little protein. Even if you're not resistance training, the 45g a day from gov guidelines seems far too low.

All the diets that suggest cut fat/sugars/carbs, or only eat at certain times......My suspicion is that really all that's working from them is by cutting out a food group they reduce calorific intake.

Surface area, need I say more?
If you masticate more, and who wouldn't want to , then you expose more of the food to the process of digestion.
There was a snippet on the TV on the eating of nuts.
This person ate almonds for a month.
The expected weight gain did not materialise, simply because the nuts stayed relatively intact, thus not exposing all the fats to absorption.

It is easier, as we are well evolved to have fairly good fuel economy, but what a whole bunch of those who calculate what you burn doing exercise still overlook is that the effects of the exercise do not end when the exercise ends. Instead, your body continues to benefit from the exercise by continuing to burn extra calories to 'repair the damage' as it were sometimes for days after the exercise.

Exercise can also build muscle, which in turn helps burn more calories. And which, of course, also means that you're putting weight on as well (presumably) as losing it.

Sort of. The difference is between muscle tone, and increasing muscle size. Most people who take aerobic exercise don't really do it to increase the size of their muscles, they tend to stay similar size. To take extreme examples, there's not much visible muscle on Mo Farah or Paula Radcliffe yet they've probably put in more aerobic exercise than the forum members put together!

It's not that easy to put on significant muscle mass. If you put on as much muscle weight as you lost fat weight, you'd look like a transformed person - not just a thinner version of your former self. (I mean "one", not you personally, but refuse to talk posh!)

I'm not sure you can "tone" a muscle. You can make a muscle stronger or weaker. If it gets stronger, it tends to get bigger (and certain types of strength have more affect on size than others) and if it gets weaker it gets smaller. Then you can gain or lose fat.

You're certainly right about gaining muscle mass, and beyond a certain point you can't do it without being on a calorific surplus. Which is how I've come to learn about gaining and losing weight lately after too much time trying to gain strength and lose fat at the same time, to little effect.